Should You Believe In The Trinity?

[DRS]

Warrior, you keep saying that I am "IN ERROR," and you keep saying "I HAVE PROVEN" but IMO you are in error because you have not proven anything to me.

You are giving OPINIONS.

Do you have the original text in the original language and do you read it fluently, or are you taking someone else's OPINION about the Hebrew and Greek as truth?

If I must learn to read the Greek and Hebrew at my age and if I must figure out which Greek text is the right one and which Hebrew text is the right one and which Dictionary has the right definition of the correct Greek and Hebrew words from the correct text to know exactly what God MEANT TO SAY, then I guess I am in trouble.

I'll just stick to my good old King James, thank you very much.
Seems to me you are using your age as an excuse to not try.

If one is really interested in truth no matter their age they make a dillegent search, if they are afraid of change or do not care they make excuses.

[DispensationalJim]

In the context that is being lord is referring to Jesus as head of the congregation, cause in both cases Paul seperates between God (Jehovah) and Lord (Jesus)

4*Now concerning the eating of foods offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5*For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6*there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.

4*One body there is, and one spirit, even as YOU were called in the one hope to which YOU were called; 5*one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6*one God and Father of all [persons], who is over all and through all and in all

Yes, DRS, those are great verses, but IMO they do not prove your point.

And, yes, DRS, Jesus Christ is the head of the body (since it is HIS BODY, The Body of Christ).

But, Jesus Christ holds several other positions, one important one being "OUR SAVIOUR."

Paul speaks of our Lord and our Saviour several times:
• 1Tim. 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
• 1Tim. 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
• 2Tim. 1:10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
• Titus 1:3 But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour; 4 To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.
• Titus 2:10 Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things. ... 13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
• Titus 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, ...6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

So, DRS, exactly who is OUR SAVIOUR? From your viewpoint, Paul can't seem to make up his mind. But from my viewpoint, it is perfectly clear. God the Father and Jesus Christ (the Son of God or as I prefer, God the Son) are ONE GOD!

[DispensationalJim]

Seems to me you are using your age as an excuse to not try.

If one is really interested in truth no matter their age they make a dillegent search, if they are afraid of change or do not care they make excuses.

Thanks, DRS. The other possibility is that -- having been interested in knowing ONLY THE TRUTH for over 50 years as a believer-- I checked out many of the other Bible versions, studied some Greek, got some Greek NT versions and dictionaries, read and spoke with many authors of books about "understanding the Bible," etc., etc... until I came to the conclusion that one could never know for sure what God really said unless their is ONE BIBLE which is God's Word preserved through the ages and available to all today.

From my diligent study of manuscript evidence and comparison with many other Bible versions, I came to accept that the King James Bible IS GOD'S PRESERVED WORD in the English language.

Now, if you have determined that the New World translation is God's Word, then fine. Just stick to it. But if you must jump from one translation to another to support your doctrine, then IMO you are trying to show what YOU THINK God MEANT TO SAY but was unable to preserve it for our time. I say God was not only ABLE to preserve it... HE DID!

[Koushi Shinigami]

I don't.

I also don't think that God speaks with Ye Olde English accent.

[noelle12]

I also don't think that God speaks with Ye Olde English accent.

:)):clap:

[Tucson Jim]

You have it backwards...............Your interpreting other scripture to the point that those verses contradict Jesus.

No, they really don't.

I may not know much or even consider myself very smart but I know you start with the source and align all things to him.
Period.

The rest of the Bible aligns perfectly with the words of Christ when you know Who He is.

If people would simply believe what Jesus spoke and then look at all other scripture in light of what he spoke then we would all be on the same page as to who the real Jesus was,is,and will be.

Nice thought Warrior, but no, I'm afraid we won't, because people will always either misinterpret Jesus' words, or the rest of the Bible, or both.

All other scripture fits perfectly if men will keep their own doctrine and thoughts out and believe what Jesus spoke and realize that there are very few verses that actually contradict Jesus and they can be shown to not contradict but rather enhance who Christ is and his purpose as Gods anointed one.

I agree. As we have repeatedly shown, the Bible, including the words of Jesus, fits perfectly with the doctrine of the Trinity.

Sometimes I think men in their vanity could not see that as a man Christ could accomplish as a man what they themselves could never do so they simply tried to make him God so they would not look so weak and helpless agaisnt the enemy.

No, the Bible says He is God. We just happen to believe the Bible, not allowing our ears to be tickled by the Unitarian theories of men.

What people don't see is that when we renew our minds to Gods Word we can walk like Christ.(at least at times we can)


Thats the beauty of God giving us Holy Spirit.

I agree.

[Tucson Jim]

So now you have two Gods in that sentence, in my bible there is only one Almighty God

There's only One God in that sentence - God is Triune.

And as far as i know no Christian ever thinks it is cool to see someone get shot in the head, see Christians besides not being idolators also rejoice in violence

I have no idea WHAT you're talking about - Christians "rejoice in violence"???

[Tucson Jim]

Can't be a different God, since Psalm 83:18 says Jehovah alone is the Most High God, and we know Jehovah is one Jehovah

There you go again - accusing me of saying the opposite of what I actually said!

I never said Jesus was a "different God" from the Father. In fact, I said He is the "same God" but "different Person".

Are you playing some kind of weird game DRS? Or can't you understand what you read?

See my statement you are quoting below.

Same God - different Person of the Trinity. As you know we believe.

so you have jehovah speaking to another person who is not the most high God

No, you have Jehovah the Father speaking to Jehovah the Son.

[Tucson Jim]

I don't.

I also don't think that God speaks with Ye Olde English accent.


Irrelevant, but I'm sure you think it's clever.

[37818]

No, you have Jehovah the Father speaking to Jehovah the Son.

not necessary. Jehovah the Father could just as easily be speaking to Jesus as the man. Jesus was both Jehovah and not Jehovah being a man. Jesus the Son of God has two natures. One Person two natures just as God being One nature who is three Persons.

I don't believe DSR wants to understand this.

Here is a question to ask anyone who denies the deity of Jesus, God's Son:

When is Jesus who is not Jehovah, Jehovah to you? Answer: When one needs to access Jehovah (John 14:6.) Jesus taught, "no man comes to the Father, but by Me."

[Koushi Shinigami]

Irrelevant, but I'm sure you think it's clever.


Yup. And I'm not the only one. :razz:

[DRS]

So, DRS, exactly who is OUR SAVIOUR? From your viewpoint, Paul can't seem to make up his mind. But from my viewpoint, it is perfectly clear. God the Father and Jesus Christ (the Son of God or as I prefer, God the Son) are ONE GOD!

Of course if you studied the bible you would see verses like this and you would understand that God is the ultimate saviour but it does not mean the instruments used are not called saviours also

Nehemiah 9:26*“However, they became disobedient and rebelled against you and kept casting your law behind their back, and your own prophets they killed, who bore witness against them to bring them back to you; and they went on committing acts of great disrespect. 27*For this you gave them into the hand of their adversaries, who kept causing them distress; but in the time of their distress they would cry out to you, and you yourself would hear from the very heavens; and in accord with your abundant mercy you would give them saviors who would save them out of the hand of their adversaries.

See once you understand from prophecy Jesus is God's anointed one and there is only one Almighty God then you understand Jesus is God's mean of slavation, hence he is the agent of salvation

[DRS]

not necessary. Jehovah the Father could just as easily be speaking to Jesus as the man. Jesus was both Jehovah and not Jehovah being a man. Jesus the Son of God has two natures. One Person two natures just as God being One nature who is three Persons.

I don't believe DSR wants to understand this.

Here is a question to ask anyone who denies the deity of Jesus, God's Son:

When is Jesus who is not Jehovah, Jehovah to you? Answer: When one needs to access Jehovah (John 14:6.) Jesus taught, "no man comes to the Father, but by Me."

And yet Peter when speaking he says this takes place in the heavens, so it was not Jehovah speaking to Jesus the man

34*Actually David did not ascend to the heavens, but he himself says, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, 35*until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”’ 36*Therefore let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom YOU impaled.”

Is Jesus not the high priest?

Could you go to anyone else to offer up sacrifices when Jehovah said this was the way to do things?

[God is My Rock]

Apparently not, if you intepret the words of Jesus in such a way that they contradict other scriptures that explicitly address the doctrine at hand.

I just "interpret" them differently then other flawed, sinful, imperfect human brothers and sisters.

You would have me believe your, "interpretation" over IMO a plainer and less "stretched" interpretation of the written word(s).

Nothing that I have seen in this thread to date has dogmatically proven/ stated the doctrine of the trinity. If that were not the case, this thread would have been over before it began. That fact that there is not just one or two verses that could be interpreted one way or the other, but ALL of the verses in question, (think about that for a second) ALL of the verses in question can be explained, without the doctrine of the trinity, convinces me that the side that requires less of man's intellect, is the truer path to a correct interpretation.

I am thankful, that I have very little "emotional knowledge" standing in my way. In other words, beloved family members that strongly profess(ed) a strong trinitarian doctrine, a trusted and respected friend/mentor, a deeply felt connection to a particular church, or a strongly held devotion to traditions, or lastly a sort of "hero-worship" of trinitarian fathers of the past.

This is not to say that I have not been influenced, nor have much respect for some or all of the above mentioned, it just means that none of that has hindered me IMO from seeing God's word as it is. And wrestling with what is written, instead of wrestling with a doctrine that was created to explain, IMO, the result of others, who lost that wrestling match.

[God is My Rock]

Originally Posted by Warrior4God
Its strange that Jesus refers to HIS GOD as his Father............now if God is a trinity ,that means Jesus is refering to the trinity if he is refering to God.

Originally Posted by Tuscon Jim
Only for those who view scripture through the opaque lens of unitarianism. For the rest of us, Jesus is specifically referring to God the Father.

Please give me the link/ reference were the greek word theos admits of "God the Father" as one of its selections for a possible definition.

Otherwise this is another addition to the addition of the doctrine to "prove" that it is the "correct" interpretation.

[God is My Rock]

You have it backwards...............Your interpreting other scripture to the point that those verses contradict Jesus.
...

If people would simply believe what Jesus spoke and then look at all other scripture in light of what he spoke then we would all be on the same page as to who the real Jesus was,is,and will be.

All other scripture fits perfectly if men will keep their own doctrine and thoughts out and believe what Jesus spoke and realize that there are very few verses that actually contradict Jesus and they can be shown to not contradict but rather enhance who Christ is and his purpose as Gods anointed one.


Amen Bro, Preach it!!!!!!!!!!

[God is My Rock]

Warrior, you keep saying that I am "IN ERROR," and you keep saying "I HAVE PROVEN" but IMO you are in error because you have not proven anything to me.

You are giving OPINIONS.

Do you have the original text in the original language and do you read it fluently, or are you taking someone else's OPINION about the Hebrew and Greek as truth?

If I must learn to read the Greek and Hebrew at my age and if I must figure out which Greek text is the right one and which Hebrew text is the right one and which Dictionary has the right definition of the correct Greek and Hebrew words from the correct text to know exactly what God MEANT TO SAY, then I guess I am in trouble.

I'll just stick to my good old King James, thank you very much.

From what I understand (which may not be much) most of the manuscripts/partial manuscripts that are still around, agree over 95% (and it may be even higher than that) of the time.

if the manuscripts (which I do not know for a fact) all have the same usage of adon,adoni,adonai, then your point would be blunted quite a bit.

And while being a greek / hebrew scholar may be beyond the realm of many of us, it requires very little effort to research the meaning of a word.

Having said that, what happens to your KJV, if 500 years from now the "english" in that day, gives various key words different definitons than what they have now?

And what if a DJim in the year 2500 says that he does not believe in the definitions of the english words from the 20th century?

And that the DJim in the year 2500 said "I am just going to stick with the KJV?"

What would you say to him?

[drmilo]

Please give me the link/ reference were the greek word theos admits of "God the Father" as one of its selections for a possible definition.

Otherwise this is another addition to the addition of the doctrine to "prove" that it is the "correct" interpretation.

http://www.studylight.org/isb/view.cgi?number=2316

qeo/v

Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling
Theos theh'-os

Parts of Speech TDNT
a deity, especially (with 3588) the supreme Divinity

Definition
1. a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities

2. the Godhead, trinity
a. God the Father, the first person in the trinity
b. Christ, the second person of the trinity
c. Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity

3. spoken of the only and true God
a. refers to the things of God
b. his counsels, interests, things due to him
c. whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way

4. God's representative or viceregent
a. of magistrates and judges


Notice definition 2a (highlighted in yellow) has the Greek word theos admiting "of 'God the Father' as one of its selections for a possible definition."

[God is My Rock]

http://www.studylight.org/isb/view.cgi?number=2316

qeo/v

Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling
Theos theh'-os

Parts of Speech TDNT
a deity, especially (with 3588) the supreme Divinity

Definition
1. a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities

2. the Godhead, trinity
a. God the Father, the first person in the trinity
b. Christ, the second person of the trinity
c. Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity

3. spoken of the only and true God
a. refers to the things of God
b. his counsels, interests, things due to him
c. whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way

4. God's representative or viceregent
a. of magistrates and judges


Notice definition 2a (highlighted in yellow) has the Greek word theos admiting "of 'God the Father' as one of its selections for a possible definition."

But this is not true, and even you know it not to be true, if you were fair.

If this possible definition were accepted at the time of the writings of the New Testament, than many of the heresies that were championed at the time would have been easily refuted.

No where have I read any of the ancient fathers refuting anti trinitarian doctrine, by pointing to an accepted understanding of the word thoes as having "God the Father" as one of the possible definitions.

This "possible definition" is a blatant later addition, derived from a believe in the doctrine of the trinity to explain scripture.

[ralittlefield]

But this is not true, and even you know it not to be true, if you were fair.

If this possible definition were accepted at the time of the writings of the New Testament, than many of the heresies that were championed at the time would have been easily refuted.

No where have I read any of the ancient fathers refuting anti trinitarian doctrine, by pointing to an accepted understanding of the word thoes as having "God the Father" as one of the possible definitions.

This "possible definition" is a blatant later addition, derived from a believe in the doctrine of the trinity to explain scripture.

Can you provide any evidence to support your last statement?

The fact that you say it is not true (I assume by that you mean not a correct definition of theos) does not make it incorrect.

Can you provide a link/source for a definition that disagrees with this?

Not all heresies that have been refuted have disappeared, so your saying that
"If this possible definition were accepted at the time of the writings of the New Testament, than many of the heresies that were championed at the time would have been easily refuted" really proves nothing.

[DRS]

Here is something simple, just show me the scripture that says God changed, where any apostle says Jehovah is three persons or worship the Father Son and Holy Spirit, because the Jews never worshipped a triune god, and it is the same Almighty God from Genesis to Revelation

[drmilo]

But this is not true, and even you know it not to be true, if you were fair.

Can you provide a source that says this definition of the word theos is "not true."

If this possible definition were accepted at the time of the writings of the New Testament, than many of the heresies that were championed at the time would have been easily refuted.

I'm not so sure about that. People tend to believe what they want to believe regardless of the truth.

No where have I read any of the ancient fathers refuting anti trinitarian doctrine, by pointing to an accepted understanding of the word thoes as having "God the Father" as one of the possible definitions.

This "possible definition" is a blatant later addition, derived from a believe in the doctrine of the trinity to explain scripture.

1. You did not ask for a definition of theos from the time of the writing of the new testament. You did not ask for anything other than ANY definition of the word theos that has "God the Father" as one of the possible definitions.

2. You cannot prove that this is a "blatant later addition derived from the doctrine of the trinity to explain scripture."

Is the definition a "later addition"? Most definitely. Is it a "blatant later addition"? No. The word blatant carries with it a negative connotation. Definitions are added to words all the time -- this does not make those later added definitions false. For example: Do you think the original defintion of the word "hat" had in it "to function in more than one capacity;"? Or is this a later addition to the definition (albiet a idiomatic definition)? As languages last, they grow, new words are added, and new definitions are added to those words. Just because the definition is a later addition does not make it wrong, untrue, or invalid.

In this case, the revelation of God in scripture makes it plainly clear that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and that there is only One God. The Doctrine of the Trinity was formulated to explain this apparent contradiction. That the Doctrine was formulated at a later date does not negate or invalidate its truthfulness. It merely takes an idea found in the Bible -- that there are three called God, but only One God -- and marry it to a word to describe the concept.

Once we have the word to describe the concept in the bible, then that word gets added to the definition of God (or theos) -- and the definition of that word also gets added to the defintion of God (or theos). Just because it is a later additon to the word does not make the definition invalid, untrue, or false.

[drmilo]

Here is something simple, just show me the scripture that says God changed, where any apostle says Jehovah is three persons or worship the Father Son and Holy Spirit, because the Jews never worshipped a triune god, and it is the same Almighty God from Genesis to Revelation

God did not change.

What was revealed to us through scripture about the nature of God has grown more complete.

[DRS]

God did not change.

What was revealed to us through scripture about the nature of God has grown more complete.

Then it would make no sense for Jesus to say we worship what we know, since your saying the Jews did not know God

If the trinity was so clear why did men years after the death of the apostles who had been influenced by greek philosophy have to formulate this?

[ralittlefield]

Then it would make no sense for Jesus to say we worship what we know, since your saying the Jews did not know God

If the trinity was so clear why did men years after the death of the apostles who had been influenced by greek philosophy have to formulate this?

It would make perfect sense for Jesus to say "we worship what we know".

He might say the same thing today.

That does not mean that what they knew when Jesus spoke those words was as complete as what we know today.

What did the Jews know about Jesus? Did they know that He was the messiah? Do you think that their knowledge of Him was complete? I don't think that it was.

[Tucson Jim]

not necessary. Jehovah the Father could just as easily be speaking to Jesus as the man. Jesus was both Jehovah and not Jehovah being a man. Jesus the Son of God has two natures. One Person two natures just as God being One nature who is three Persons.

True, but for those who will not admit to the Divine nature of Jesus, I have emphasized that in my response.

I don't believe DSR wants to understand this.

Either that, or he does understand and he's just playing a little game. Either way, I don't believe God is too happy about it.

Here is a question to ask anyone who denies the deity of Jesus, God's Son:

When is Jesus who is not Jehovah, Jehovah to you? Answer: When one needs to access Jehovah (John 14:6.) Jesus taught, "no man comes to the Father, but by Me."

Amen!

[Tucson Jim]

Yup. And I'm not the only one. :razz:

Yeah, ya got me there - there is one other person who thought it was clever. :))

[Koushi Shinigami]

Yeah, ya got me there - there is one other person who thought it was clever. :))

Yup. I'm claiming the silent majority as well. :razz:

[Tucson Jim]

Of course if you studied the bible you would see verses like this and you would understand that God is the ultimate saviour but it does not mean the instruments used are not called saviours also.

Nehemiah 9:26*“However, they became disobedient and rebelled against you and kept casting your law behind their back, and your own prophets they killed, who bore witness against them to bring them back to you; and they went on committing acts of great disrespect. 27*For this you gave them into the hand of their adversaries, who kept causing them distress; but in the time of their distress they would cry out to you, and you yourself would hear from the very heavens; and in accord with your abundant mercy you would give them saviors who would save them out of the hand of their adversaries.

See once you understand from prophecy Jesus is God's anointed one and there is only one Almighty God then you understand Jesus is God's mean of slavation, hence he is the agent of salvation

And if you studied the Bible with an open heart, you might learn that Jesus is both the author (originator) and finisher (agent) of our salvation.

"Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." Heb 12:2

[Tucson Jim]

Yup. I'm claiming the silent majority as well. :razz:

Indeed, you can believe whatever you want.

[Koushi Shinigami]

As can you. Difference is, I'm right. :D

[Tucson Jim]

I just "interpret" them differently then other flawed, sinful, imperfect human brothers and sisters.

As far as I know, no one has claimed infallibility here.

You would have me believe your, "interpretation" over IMO a plainer and less "stretched" interpretation of the written word(s).

Naw, I would not "have" anyone believe anything. I am simply presenting a case for what I believe as, I think, you are.

Nothing that I have seen in this thread to date has dogmatically proven/ stated the doctrine of the trinity. If that were not the case, this thread would have been over before it began. That fact that there is not just one or two verses that could be interpreted one way or the other, but ALL of the verses in question, (think about that for a second) ALL of the verses in question can be explained, without the doctrine of the trinity, convinces me that the side that requires less of man's intellect, is the truer path to a correct interpretation.

No offense GMR but have you ever taken a Philosophy course? If you had, you would realize that virtually everything is debatable. If Jesus said "I am God Almighty", the JWs would say He meant " 'a god' who is a very mighty one", AngryAmerican would say "God didn't say that in the Old Testament so I can't believe it", Warrior would say "it must be an addition by Trinitarians since Jesus didn't say it anywhere else", and so on. Every doctrine is debatable, as we see every day in the RF.

So, no - no one can "prove" the Trinity to you.

I am thankful, that I have very little "emotional knowledge" standing in my way. In other words, beloved family members that strongly profess(ed) a strong trinitarian doctrine, a trusted and respected friend/mentor, a deeply felt connection to a particular church, or a strongly held devotion to traditions, or lastly a sort of "hero-worship" of trinitarian fathers of the past.

Nor do I. None at all. So is it just possible that I came by my beliefs honestly, having studied the Bible for many years, praying to God for discernment? Or do you think you are the only one here capable of thinking for himself?

This is not to say that I have not been influenced, nor have much respect for some or all of the above mentioned, it just means that none of that has hindered me IMO from seeing God's word as it is. And wrestling with what is written, instead of wrestling with a doctrine that was created to explain, IMO, the result of others, who lost that wrestling match.

Don't you think your last statement demeans Trinitarians who have wrestled with interpreting the scriptures and have honestly come to a different conclusion than you? Are you now the infallible one?

[Tucson Jim]

As can you. Difference is, I'm right. :D

:)) It's hard to argue with that!

[ralittlefield]

No offense GMR but have you ever taken a Philosophy course? If you had, you would realize that virtually everything is debatable. If Jesus said "I am God Almighty", the JWs qould say He meant " 'a god' who is a very mighty one", AngryAmerican would say "God didn't say that in the Old Testament so I can't believe it", Warrior would say "it must be an addition by Trinitarians since Jesus didn't say it anywhere else", and so on. Every doctrine is debatable, as we see every day in the RF.

So, no - no one can "prove" the Trinity to you.


That bodes well for the longevity of this thread! ;)

[Tucson Jim]

That bodes well for the longevity of this thread! ;)

Yeah, we're never getting out of here!:wall:

[Meriweather]

Yeah, we're never getting out of here!:wall:

Speaking as one of the onlookers, I kind of like having you where you are. It has been an informative thread. I never knew there were so many different ways of looking at Trinity.

[ralittlefield]

Yeah, we're never getting out of here!:wall:

I've been in worst places, with much worst company (but let's not go there!).

[Tucson Jim]

Speaking as one of the onlookers, I kind of like having you where you are. It has been an informative thread. I never knew there were so many different ways of looking at Trinity.

Why thanks Meriweather! I have also learned a lot from some of the knowledgeable folks on this thread.

[Tucson Jim]

I've been in worst places, with much worst company (but let's not go there!).

Me too! I actually think this has been a great thread!

[drmilo]

Me too! I actually think this has been a great thread!

Has been? Is the thread coming to an end?

Where am I going to play now?

[DispensationalJim]

From what I understand (which may not be much) most of the manuscripts/partial manuscripts that are still around, agree over 95% (and it may be even higher than that) of the time.

if the manuscripts (which I do not know for a fact) all have the same usage of adon,adoni,adonai, then your point would be blunted quite a bit.

And while being a greek / hebrew scholar may be beyond the realm of many of us, it requires very little effort to research the meaning of a word.

Having said that, what happens to your KJV, if 500 years from now the "english" in that day, gives various key words different definitons than what they have now?

And what if a DJim in the year 2500 says that he does not believe in the definitions of the english words from the 20th century?

And that the DJim in the year 2500 said "I am just going to stick with the KJV?"

What would you say to him?

First, from my personal study of "manuscript evidence," yes, there are roughly 5,000 NT Greek texts which do agree with each other to a very high percentage. They have collectively been given such titles as "The Majority Text", "The Textus Receptus" or "The Received Text" and also "The Byzantine Text" or the Syrian Text and even "The Common Text." This group of texts is most often credited as the main source for the translating of the King James Bible.

Then, as I recall, there are about 12 sets of Greek manuscripts which do not agree with each other in many places and which also disagree in many places with the "Textus Receptus." Two of those 12 are the well known "Vaticanus" and "Sanaiticus" texts, which Wescott and Hort considered to be the "oldest and most reliable" and thus they mostly used them to produce their "Greek Lexicon of 1870" which revolutionized and energized the Bible publishing industry. IMO, they are the main reason we now have all the new Bible versions which disagree with the King James.

As far as the usage of adoni, adonai, etc., if you want to check out each of the thousands of available manuscripts yourself, I would be happy to hear the results of your research if you can conclude your study before I die.

And, dear Rock, I do concede that words can change their meaning over the centuries, but the King James has survived after 400 years of such gradual changes, mainly because many dictionaries include the old and new meanings together, thus insuring that readers can be aware of the various possibilities and because many old dictionaries and encyclopedias are still available to show what the word meant centuries ago. I would also guess that the King James publishers of 2500 would add center-column or bottom of the page notations explaining the changes in meaning as some King James Bibles do even today.

Finally, Rock, I hope I meet the D-Jim of 2500 in Heaven and then I can ask him what he thought of your hypothetical situations.

[Tucson Jim]

Has been? Is the thread coming to an end?

Where am I going to play now?

Coming to an end? No way! We have only begun to fight! (or "discuss") :))

[DispensationalJim]

Coming to an end? No way! We have only begun to fight! (or "discuss") :))

I think someone once said: "Hallelujah, and pass the ammunition!"

[Angryamerican]

One of the most famous lines from the declaration of independence is:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."

So you think God has an equal ?

[Angryamerican]

Actually, I agree with you. I was not happy with that either.

How about Gal 3

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

When has Jesus claim to be equal to God ? He hasn't. Fact is he claimed the opposite.

Now i'm just going by what the nt say's .

[DispensationalJim]

Glad to see AngryAmerican back. Just in case you missed it, AA, here is my response to your statements:

==============================
Originally Posted by Angryamerican
...
I have yet to have anyone here show me that the messiah was meant to die for mankind in the ot prophecies ?

I have yet to have anyone here show me from the ot prophecies that it was gonna take a second coming for all prophecy to be fulfilled by the messiah ? ...

============================

I believe the vast majority of those who call themselves Christians accept this passage as referring to THE SUFFERING AND DYING MESSIAH:

Is. 53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Is. 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
Is. 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
Is. 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Is. 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
Is. 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
Is. 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
Is. 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Is. 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Is. 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

And here is more clear prophecy about the DEATH OF THE MESSIAH:

Dan. 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
Dan. 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;

===========================

And here is prophecy of the SECOND COMING OF MESSIAH TO SET UP HIS KINGDOM:

Dan. 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, ONE like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
Dan. 7:14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion IS AN EVERLASTING DOMINION, WHICH SHALL NOT PASS AWAY, AND HIS KINGDOM THAT which shall not be destroyed.

Dan. 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

ETC., ETC...

[God is My Rock]

Can you provide any evidence to support your last statement?


How about the ABSOLUTE VOID of any reference to the early fathers pointing to the word theos as including this definition.

The proof exists by a minor amount of simple thought.

1.) The Jews then, had no concept of a trinity. Nowhere in the old testament is it mentioned. Nowhere in their own commentaries is an idea like this even remotely discussed.

2.) Having said that, is it really possible to believe, that with such a radically new understanding of God (a triune being) that the inspired writings of the new testament would not specifically address this, the single most radical new addition, to the understanding of the "Jewish" God? NOT ONE SPECIFIC MENTION ........ZERO

3.) In addition to the above whopper, can you then imagine that a word such a theos, which never had "God the Father" or "God the Son" or "God the Holy Spirit" as an original defintion (it couldn't because no one ever knew of nor acknowledged a triune God at the time/past) That this word would be used with any of the above mentioned definitions in mind, without clarification of some sort, as to which "person" of God was being addressed? Otherwise how would people know? This was a new concept at the time.


Can you provide a link/source for a definition that disagrees with this?


www.holyspirit.god :razz:

[God is My Rock]

No offense GMR but have you ever taken a Philosophy course? If you had, you would realize that virtually everything is debatable. If Jesus said "I am God Almighty", the JWs would say He meant " 'a god' who is a very mighty one", AngryAmerican would say "God didn't say that in the Old Testament so I can't believe it", Warrior would say "it must be an addition by Trinitarians since Jesus didn't say it anywhere else", and so on. Every doctrine is debatable, as we see every day in the RF.


:)):)):))


Don't you think your last statement demeans Trinitarians who have wrestled with interpreting the scriptures and have honestly come to a different conclusion than you? Are you now the infallible one?

Demeans? It was not meant to demean, and if I offended you I am sorry. But as you discuss Christ with a non believer, and they tell you "Who do you think you are? , Are you the only one going to heaven, or who are you to judge?" Was your intent at stating the fact that in essence they are living in sin, and without repenting and accepting Jesus Christ as their saviour, they are going to hell, Is it your intent that you are trying to demean them? One person can be right, because they side with God, but not intend to demean, and still look and the other person and say "I'm sorry, I was not trying to demean, but you are still on the wrong side of God."

That does not mean that I think you are on the wrong side of God, it just means that I think trinitarians are wrong.

Just as you think I am wrong.

Your argument this time, just sounded a little to worldy.

The old "Who are you to say what is true"

[God is My Rock]

First, from my personal study of "manuscript evidence," yes, there are roughly 5,000 NT Greek texts which do agree with each other to a very high percentage. They have collectively been given such titles as "The Majority Text", "The Textus Receptus" or "The Received Text" and also "The Byzantine Text" or the Syrian Text and even "The Common Text." This group of texts is most often credited as the main source for the translating of the King James Bible.

Then, as I recall, there are about 12 sets of Greek manuscripts which do not agree with each other in many places and which also disagree in many places with the "Textus Receptus." Two of those 12 are the well known "Vaticanus" and "Sanaiticus" texts, which Wescott and Hort considered to be the "oldest and most reliable" and thus they mostly used them to produce their "Greek Lexicon of 1870" which revolutionized and energized the Bible publishing industry. IMO, they are the main reason we now have all the new Bible versions which disagree with the King James.

As far as the usage of adoni, adonai, etc., if you want to check out each of the thousands of available manuscripts yourself, I would be happy to hear the results of your research if you can conclude your study before I die.

And, dear Rock, I do concede that words can change their meaning over the centuries, but the King James has survived after 400 years of such gradual changes, mainly because many dictionaries include the old and new meanings together, thus insuring that readers can be aware of the various possibilities and because many old dictionaries and encyclopedias are still available to show what the word meant centuries ago. I would also guess that the King James publishers of 2500 would add center-column or bottom of the page notations explaining the changes in meaning as some King James Bibles do even today.

Finally, Rock, I hope I meet the D-Jim of 2500 in Heaven and then I can ask him what he thought of your hypothetical situations.

:)

[DispensationalJim]

How about the ABSOLUTE VOID of any reference to the early fathers pointing to the word theos as including this definition.

The proof exists by a minor amount of simple thought.

1.) The Jews then, had no concept of a trinity. Nowhere in the old testament is it mentioned. Nowhere in their own commentaries is an idea like this even remotely discussed.

2.) Having said that, is it really possible to believe, that with such a radically new understanding of God (a triune being) that the inspired writings of the new testament would not specifically address this, the single most radical new addition, to the understanding of the "Jewish" God? NOT ONE SPECIFIC MENTION ........ZERO

3.) In addition to the above whopper, can you then imagine that a word such a theos, which never had "God the Father" or "God the Son" or "God the Holy Spirit" as an original defintion (it couldn't because no one ever knew of nor acknowledged a triune God at the time/past) That this word would be used with any of the above mentioned definitions in mind, without clarification of some sort, as to which "person" of God was being addressed? Otherwise how would people know? This was a new concept at the time.

www.holyspirit.god :razz:

I'm not "into" what the "early church fathers" said, so I'll skip to your next point.

The Jews did not even recognize Jesus as "The Christ" (or Messiah), so how can you base your views on what they do or don't believe?

==========================

Finally, anyone who has a KING JAMES BIBLE (which I have defended on here many times as I'm sure you well know), has many CLEAR REFERENCES TO THE DEITY OF CHRIST AND THE TRINITY. Here are a few examples:

• John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. ...14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
• John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
• John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
• Rom. 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead;
• 2Cor. 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
• Col. 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
• Phil. 2:1 If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love ("God is love"-1Jn 4), if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,
• Heb. 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
• 1John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
• Rev. 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. ...11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last:
• Rev. 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: 18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
• Rev. 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
• Rev. 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.... 16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. 17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come....

Now, Rock, you can find other Bible versions which disagree with the above "translation", but IMO you cannot prove that those verses are not in God's Word.

=======================

BTW, Rock, are you sure you and Warrior are not the same person?

[Warrior4God]

BTW, Rock, are you sure you and Warrior are not the same person?

2 people who never met and on the same page for the most part ...........kinda cool to see that GMR has seen from scripture what I see.

Thats why we are winning this debate huh GMR?












































just kidding ya'll keep your pants on.

[God is My Rock]

2 people who never met and on the same page for the most part ...........kinda cool to see that GMR has seen from scripture what I see.

Thats why we are winning this debate huh GMR?

That's what happens when God's spirit is your guide :razz:














































Me too.........

[Warrior4God]

That's what happens when God's spirit is your guide :razz:














































Me too.........

nut

[Tucson Jim]

When has Jesus claim to be equal to God ? He hasn't. Fact is he claimed the opposite.

Now i'm just going by what the nt say's .

That's odd, since you don't believe the NT. :think: :confused:

[Angryamerican]

Hi Djim, I'm not on as much anymore. But i will respond to isa 53 and i will look at the rest of your response and i will respond as soon as i can.

But just a quick look at isa 53 this verse seems to contradict the point you were trying to make.

Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased Jehovah to crush Him; to grieve Him; that He should put forth His soul as a guilt-offering. He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the will of Jehovah shall prosper in His hand.

Jesus has seed ? It pleased God to crush his son ?

[CMike11]

How about the ABSOLUTE VOID of any reference to the early fathers pointing to the word theos as including this definition.

The proof exists by a minor amount of simple thought.

1.) The Jews then, had no concept of a trinity. Nowhere in the old testament is it mentioned. Nowhere in their own commentaries is an idea like this even remotely discussed.

2.) Having said that, is it really possible to believe, that with such a radically new understanding of God (a triune being) that the inspired writings of the new testament would not specifically address this, the single most radical new addition, to the understanding of the "Jewish" God? NOT ONE SPECIFIC MENTION ........ZERO

3.) In addition to the above whopper, can you then imagine that a word such a theos, which never had "God the Father" or "God the Son" or "God the Holy Spirit" as an original defintion (it couldn't because no one ever knew of nor acknowledged a triune God at the time/past) That this word would be used with any of the above mentioned definitions in mind, without clarification of some sort, as to which "person" of God was being addressed? Otherwise how would people know? This was a new concept at the time.



www.holyspirit.god :razz:

That is why Jews can only believe in one G-D to worship.

None other can be worshipped in any manner in Judaism.

[Angryamerican]

That's odd, since you don't believe the NT. :think: :confused:

Just helping yall get it right :mrgreen:

[Tucson Jim]

Demeans? It was not meant to demean, and if I offended you I am sorry.

It's OK. Thank you for clearing that up.


But as you discuss Christ with a non believer, and they tell you "Who do you think you are? , Are you the only one going to heaven, or who are you to judge?" Was your intent at stating the fact that in essence they are living in sin, and without repenting and accepting Jesus Christ as their saviour, they are going to hell, Is it your intent that you are trying to demean them? One person can be right, because they side with God, but not intend to demean, and still look and the other person and say "I'm sorry, I was not trying to demean, but you are still on the wrong side of God."

Ok, you didn't intend to demean. Thank you.

That does not mean that I think you are on the wrong side of God, it just means that I think trinitarians are wrong.

Thanks again. For the "not meaning I am on the wrong side of God" part. I don't think you are on the wrong side of God either. Just wrong about the trinity.


Just as you think I am wrong.

Sadly, yes.

Your argument this time, just sounded a little to worldy.

The old "Who are you to say what is true"

I think you have misunderstood what I am trying to say. Perhaps I didn't say it clearly enough - I apologize.

I'm not saying "Who are you to say what is true"? I'm responding to your requirement that the Doctrine of the Trinity be "proven" in your previous post.

It seems to me that you're smart enough to know that a belief cannot be proven - I can't prove Trinity to you any more than you can prove your beliefs to me. I can show you the evidence from scripture - and we have tried to do that for quite a while now. But "prove" it - no.

Is this recognition that beliefs cannot be proven "worldly"? In what way? Perhaps you could clarify what you mean.

[Tucson Jim]

Just helping yall get it right :mrgreen:

Thanks!

I think . . . :eek:

[Tucson Jim]

I'm not "into" what the "early church fathers" said, so I'll skip to your next point.

The Jews did not even recognize Jesus as "The Christ" (or Messiah), so how can you base your views on what they do or don't believe?

==========================

Finally, anyone who has a KING JAMES BIBLE (which I have defended on here many times as I'm sure you well know), has many CLEAR REFERENCES TO THE DEITY OF CHRIST AND THE TRINITY. Here are a few examples:

• John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. ...14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
• John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
• John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
• Rom. 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead;
• 2Cor. 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
• Col. 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
• Phil. 2:1 If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love ("God is love"-1Jn 4), if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,
• Heb. 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
• 1John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
• Rev. 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. ...11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last:
• Rev. 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: 18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
• Rev. 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
• Rev. 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.... 16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. 17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come....

Now, Rock, you can find other Bible versions which disagree with the above "translation", but IMO you cannot prove that those verses are not in God's Word.

=======================

BTW, Rock, are you sure you and Warrior are not the same person?

Great post D-Jim! Keep 'em coming!

[DRS]

It would make perfect sense for Jesus to say "we worship what we know".

He might say the same thing today.

That does not mean that what they knew when Jesus spoke those words was as complete as what we know today.

What did the Jews know about Jesus? Did they know that He was the messiah? Do you think that their knowledge of Him was complete? I don't think that it was.

The Jews who were servent of God knew he was the messiah, or have you never read the gospels?

we Jesus spoke those words God was the same then

So you admit Jesus worships God today then too

[God is My Rock]

Is this recognition that beliefs cannot be proven "worldly"? In what way? Perhaps you could clarify what you mean.

No, I guess I was just being philosophically oversensitive.

Sorry.

[God is My Rock]

=======================

BTW, Rock, are you sure you and Warrior are not the same person?

:))
Yes, but we are one :razz:

[Angryamerican]

Great post D-Jim! Keep 'em coming!

You still feel that way even though he posted verses that is being removed from many translations because they lack credibility ?

• 1John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

[CMike11]

Isaiah 53, the person it is speaking about is Israel.

It's really important to look at the text before, and after the passages where it clearly states it's Israel. It's one long prophesy.

http://jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=313&Itemid=228
Isaiah 53



B. CONTEXT
Since any portion of Scripture is only understood properly when viewed in the context of God's revelation as a whole, some additional study will be helpful before you "tackle" Isaiah 53.

Look at the setting in which Isaiah 53 occurs. Earlier on in Isaiah, God had predicted exile and calamity for the Jewish people. Chapter 53, however, occurs in the midst of Isaiah's "Messages of Consolation", which tell of the restoration of Israel to a position of prominence and a vindication of their status as God's chosen people. In chapter 52, for example, Israel is described as "oppressed without cause" (v.4) and "taken away" (v.5), yet God promises a brighter future ahead, one in which Israel will again prosper and be redeemed in the sight of all the nations (v.1-3, 8-12).

Chapter 54 further elaborates upon the redemption which awaits the nation of Israel. Following immediately after chapter 53's promise of a reward for God's servant in return for all of its suffering (53:10-12), chapter 54 describes an unequivocally joyous fate for the Jewish people. Speaking clearly of the Jewish people and their exalted status (even according to all Christian commentaries), chapter 54 ends as follows: "`This is the heritage of the servants of the L-rd and their vindication is from Me,' declares the L-rd."

C. ISAIAH 53
In the original Hebrew texts, there are no chapter divisions, and Jew and Christian alike agree that chapter 53 is actually a continuation of the prophecy which begins at 52:13. Accordingly, our analysis must begin at that verse.

52:13 "Behold, My servant will prosper." Israel in the singular is called God's servant throughout Isaiah, both explicitly (Isa. 41:8-9; 44:1-2; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3) and implicitly (Isa. 42:19-20; 43:10) - the Messiah is not. Other references to Israel as God's servant include Jer. 30:10 (note that in Jer. 30:17, the servant Israel is regarded by the nations as an outcast, forsaken by God, as in Isa. 53:4); Jer. 46:27-28; Ps. 136:22; Lk. 1:54. ALSO: Given the Christian view that Jesus is God, is God His own servant?

52:15 - 53:1 "So shall he (the servant) startle many nations, the kings will stand speechless; For that which had not been told them they shall see and that which they had not heard shall they ponder. Who would believe what we have heard?" Quite clearly, the nations and their kings will be amazed at what happens to the "servant of the L-rd," and they will say "who would believe what we have heard?". 52:15 tells us explicitly that it is the nations of the world, the gentiles, who are doing the talking in Isaiah 53. See, also, Micah 7:12-17, which speaks of the nations' astonishment when the Jewish people again blossom in the Messianic age.

53:1 "And to whom has the arm of the L-rd been revealed?" In Isaiah, and throughout our Scriptures, God's "arm" refers to the physical redemption of the Jewish people from the oppression of other nations (see, e.g., Isa. 52:8-12; Isa. 63:12; Deut. 4:34; Deut. 7:19; Ps. 44:3).

53:3 "Despised and rejected of men." While this is clearly applicable to Israel (see Isa. 60:15; Ps. 44:13-14), it cannot be reconciled with the New Testament account of Jesus, a man who was supposedly "praised by all" (Lk. 4:14-15) and followed by multitudes (Matt. 4:25), who would later acclaim him as a prophet upon his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Matt. 21:9-11). Even as he was taken to be crucified, a multitude bemoaned his fate (Lk. 23:27). Jesus had to be taken by stealth, as the rulers feared "a riot of the people" (Mk. 14:1-2).

53:3 "A man of pains and acquainted with disease." Israel's adversities are frequently likened to sickness - see, e.g., Isa. 1:5-6; Jer. 10:19; Jer 30:12.

53:4 "Surely our diseases he carried and our pains he bore." In Matt. 8:17, this is correctly translated, and said to be literally (not spiritually) fulfilled in Jesus' healing of the sick, a reading inconsistent with the Christian mistranslation of 53:4 itself.

53:4 "Yet we ourselves esteemed him stricken, smitten of G- D and afflicted." See Jer. 30:17 - of God's servant Israel (30:10), it is said by the nations, "It is Zion; no one cares for her."

53:5 "But he was wounded from (NOTE: not for) our transgressions, he was crushed from (AGAIN: not for) our iniquities." Whereas the nations had thought the Servant (Israel) was undergoing Divine retribution for its sins (53:4), they now realize that the Servant's sufferings stemmed from their actions and sinfulness. This theme is further developed throughout our Jewish Scriptures - see, e.g., Jer. 50:7; Jer. 10:25. ALSO: Note that the Messiah "shall not fail nor be crushed till he has set the right in the earth" (Isa. 42:4).

53:7 "He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth. Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so he did not open his mouth." Note that in the prior chapter (Isa. 52), Israel is said to have been oppressed and taken away without cause (52:4-5). A similar theme is developed in Psalm 44, wherein King David speaks of Israel's faithfulness even in the face of gentile oppression (44:17- 18) and describes Israel as "sheep to be slaughtered" in the midst of the unfaithful gentile nations (44:22,11).

Regarding the claim that Jesus "did not open his mouth" when faced with oppression and affliction, see Matt. 27:46, Jn. 18:23, 36-37.

53:8 "From dominion and judgement he was taken away." Note the correct translation of the Hebrew. The Christians are forced to mistranslate, since - by Jesus' own testimony - he never had any rights to rulership or judgement, at least not on the "first coming." See, e.g., Jn. 3:17; Jn. 8:15; Jn. 12:47; Jn. 18:36.

53:8 "He was cut off out of the land of the living."

53:9 "His grave was assigned with wicked men." See Ez. 37:11-14, wherein Israelis described as "cut off" and God promises to open its "graves" and bring Israel back into its own land. Other examples of figurative deaths include Ex. 10:17; 2 Sam. 9:8; 2 Sam. 16:9.

53:8 "From my peoples' sins, there was injury to them." Here the Prophet makes absolutely clear, to anyone familiar with Biblical Hebrew, that the oppressed Servant is a collective Servant, not a single individual. The Hebrew word "lamoh", when used in our Scriptures, always means "to them" never "to him" and may be found, for example, in Psalm 99:7 - "They kept his testimonies, and the statute that He gave to them."

53:9 "And with the rich in his deaths." Perhaps King James should have changed the original Hebrew, which again makes clear that we are dealing with a collective Servant, i.e., Israel, which will "come to life" when the exile ends (Ez. 37:14).

53:9 "He had done no violence." See Matt. 21:12; Mk. 11:15-16; Lk. 19:45; Lk. 19:27; Matt. 10:34 and Lk. 12:51; then judge for yourself whether this passage is truly consistent with the New Testament account of Jesus.
53:10 "He shall see his seed." The Hebrew word for "seed", used in this verse, always refers to physical descendants in our Jewish Scriptures. See, e.g., Gen. 12:7; Gen. 15:13; Gen. 46:6; Ex. 28:43. A different word, generally translated as "sons", is used to refer to spiritual descendants (see Deut. 14:1, e.g.).

53:10 "He will prolong his days." Not only did Jesus die young, but how could the days be prolonged of someone who is alleged to be God?

53:11 "With his knowledge the righteous one, my Servant, will cause many to be just." Note again the correct translation: the Servant will cause many to be just, he will not "justify the many." The Jewish mission is to serve as a "light to the nations" which will ultimately lead the world to a knowledge of the one true God, this both by example (Deut. 4:5-8; Zech. 8:23) and by instructing the nations in God's Law (Isa. 2:3-4; Micah 4:2-3).

53:12 "Therefore, I will divide a portion to him with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty." If Jesus is God, does the idea of reward have any meaning? Is it not rather the Jewish people - who righteously bore the sins of the world and yet remained faithful to God (Ps. 44) - who will be rewarded, and this in the manner described more fully in Isaiah chapters 52 and 54?

[Angryamerican]

D-jim did you see that post by mike ?

[DispensationalJim]

D-jim did you see that post by mike ?

Just got back from an elders meeting. I'll check it out and respond as soon as I can.

[Tucson Jim]

<snip>

52:13 "Behold, My servant will prosper." Israel in the singular is called God's servant throughout Isaiah, both explicitly (Isa. 41:8-9; 44:1-2; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3) and implicitly (Isa. 42:19-20; 43:10) - the Messiah is not. Other references to Israel as God's servant include Jer. 30:10 (note that in Jer. 30:17, the servant Israel is regarded by the nations as an outcast, forsaken by God, as in Isa. 53:4); Jer. 46:27-28; Ps. 136:22; Lk. 1:54. ALSO: Given the Christian view that Jesus is God, is God His own servant?

I try to avoid these discussions of "The Jews don't think Jesus is the Messiah" because I think this derails the thread. At the very best, it is extremely tangential to the topic.

However, the highlighted text above represents one sentence that is germane to the topic of the thread and has been answered multiple times but, apparently, at least once more is needed.

From a Trinitarian view, a Triune God can indeed be "His own servant" in the sense that God the Son can take on human flesh and serve God the Father. Three Persons, one God.

[Tucson Jim]

No, I guess I was just being philosophically oversensitive.

Sorry.

No sweat - I have been known to do that myself!

[Tucson Jim]

:))
Yes, but we are one :razz:

:)):)):))

[Tucson Jim]

You still feel that way even though he posted verses that is being removed from many translations because they lack credibility ?

• 1John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Yep! I think D-Jim has made a good case for this point in previous posts.

[DispensationalJim]

CMike11 wrote a long response to my long post about Isaiah 53 and other passages.

Mike quoted from this site:
http://jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?...313&Itemid=228

Mike began his post with this comment:
"Isaiah 53, the person it is speaking about is Israel."

============================

In response to Mike, first, I will quote from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_53
=============================

Isaiah 53 in Rabbinic Sources

Despite objections in modern Judaism to the messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53, some ancient rabbinic and Talmudic sources have shown the opposite view. The concept of a suffering messiah, Messiah ben Joseph, has been a part of Judaism since before the Christian era. The Old Testament paraphrase of Targum Jonathan begins in 52:13 with the words, "Behold, my servant the Messiah shall prosper," assigning the passage's interpretation to a suffering messiah. The ancient Babylonian Talmud asks, "Rabbi Yochanan said, ‘The Messiah - what is his name?’… And our Rabbis said, ‘the pale one… is his name,’ as it is written ‘Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows - yet we considered him stricken by G~d, smitten by him and afflicted.’"[5] This perspective on the passage has been influential in Jewish exegesis until as recently as the 16th century, when Rabbi Moshe Alshich said of the passage, "I may remark then, that our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah, and we ourselves shall adhere to the same view."[6] ...


One of the first claims in the New Testament of Isaiah 53 to be a prophecy of Jesus comes from the Book of Acts, in which its author, Luke, describes a scene in which God commands Philip the Apostle to approach an Ethiopian eunuch who is sitting in a chariot, reading aloud to himself from the Book of Isaiah. The man explains that he does not understand what he is reading, (Isaiah 53), and Philip explains to him that it is Jesus to whom the passage refers. "And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? Of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus."[9]...


Many modern Christian scholars cite the Babylonian Talmud as the "earliest indisputable, firsthand evidence of a rabbinic interpretation of Isaiah 53 which takes the servant as the Messiah, and attributes suffering to him"[13]

Christians argue that the "servant" could not have been the nation of Israel because of scriptural contradictions that would arise. Primarily, the servant is described as "innocent and guiltless," but Isaiah 1:4 declares the nation of Israel to be "...a people laden with iniquity. A brood of evildoers, children who are corrupters!"[11], along with countless other verses that declare Israel's iniquity including Isaiah 64:6. Many Jews see no contradiction and view the descriptions of Israel's iniquity as being hyperbolic. This is in contrast to the Christian doctrine of Supersessionism.

In addition, Christians argue that if the "servant" were Israel, verse 10 ("It pleased the LORD to bruise him") would thereby be illogical because it entails God enjoying the sufferings of His elect people, which would seem to have no purpose, whereas the suffering of Jesus would ultimately mean an absolution of sin and victory for mankind.[11] It has also been argued that the nation of Israel, even through all of its suffering and torment can not have "atoned" for the sins of mankind because they were not guiltless.[11]

Most Jewish scholars equate the phrase "It pleased..." with the concept of divine kingship. All royal acts in an absolute kingdom take place at the "pleasure" of the king, regardless of whether they bring the king actual joy or not. Additionally, Jewish theologians contend that one need not be guiltless for his suffering to have meaning.
Another Christian argument is that, although Isaiah does elsewhere refer to "my servant Israel," it is reasonable to argue that this "Israel" is not in fact the nation of Israel, but the Messiah. Just as the Messiah is sometimes referred to as "David," after his progenitor (cf. Ezekiel 34:23-24, 37:24), it is not unreasonable that he might be referred to as "Israel."

As a proof to this idea, in Isaiah 49:3 KJV, the LORD states, "Thou art My servant, O' Israel, in whom I will be glorified." Shortly thereafter, the scripture reveals that this servant called "Israel" would be responsible "to bring Jacob again to Him (the LORD), though Israel be not gathered..." (Isa. 49:5), and the LORD declares that the servant called "Israel" should be "My servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel..." Furthermore, the LORD states, "...I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth" (Isa. 49:6). This "Israel" could be seen as the Messiah, who is to be responsible for raising Jacob and re-gathering Israel (Daniel. 7:13; Isa. 27:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17; 1 Corinthians 15:52-55; Gospel of Matthew 24:29-31).

==========================

Secondly, Mike, I would mention that Isaiah uses the term "Israel" about 75 times in the book, and refers to Israel as God's "people" about the same number of times, so using "he" and "him" in reference to the NATION of israel would seem confusing to me.

The use of the word "servant" is mostly used in reference to an individual. Many times in Isaiah it is the man known as Israel (or Jacob) but it is also even used regarding Nebuchadnezzar. So, IMO, to try to take every reference of Israel or "my servant" to be the nation of Israel would require considerable stretching.

================================

Finally, Mike, please remember that Jesus quoted from Isaiah Himself:
• Is. 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is UPON ME; BECAUSE THE LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; 2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

• Luke 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, 18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. 20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Jesus clearly knew who He was.

[Angryamerican]

CMike11 wrote a long response to my long post about Isaiah 53 and other passages.

Mike quoted from this site:
http://jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?...313&Itemid=228

Mike began his post with this comment:
"Isaiah 53, the person it is speaking about is Israel."

============================

In response to Mike, first, I will quote from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_53
=============================

Isaiah 53 in Rabbinic Sources

Despite objections in modern Judaism to the messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53, some ancient rabbinic and Talmudic sources have shown the opposite view. The concept of a suffering messiah, Messiah ben Joseph, has been a part of Judaism since before the Christian era. The Old Testament paraphrase of Targum Jonathan begins in 52:13 with the words, "Behold, my servant the Messiah shall prosper," assigning the passage's interpretation to a suffering messiah. The ancient Babylonian Talmud asks, "Rabbi Yochanan said, ‘The Messiah - what is his name?’… And our Rabbis said, ‘the pale one… is his name,’ as it is written ‘Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows - yet we considered him stricken by G~d, smitten by him and afflicted.’"[5] This perspective on the passage has been influential in Jewish exegesis until as recently as the 16th century, when Rabbi Moshe Alshich said of the passage, "I may remark then, that our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah, and we ourselves shall adhere to the same view."[6] ...


One of the first claims in the New Testament of Isaiah 53 to be a prophecy of Jesus comes from the Book of Acts, in which its author, Luke, describes a scene in which God commands Philip the Apostle to approach an Ethiopian eunuch who is sitting in a chariot, reading aloud to himself from the Book of Isaiah. The man explains that he does not understand what he is reading, (Isaiah 53), and Philip explains to him that it is Jesus to whom the passage refers. "And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? Of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus."[9]...


Many modern Christian scholars cite the Babylonian Talmud as the "earliest indisputable, firsthand evidence of a rabbinic interpretation of Isaiah 53 which takes the servant as the Messiah, and attributes suffering to him"[13]

Christians argue that the "servant" could not have been the nation of Israel because of scriptural contradictions that would arise. Primarily, the servant is described as "innocent and guiltless," but Isaiah 1:4 declares the nation of Israel to be "...a people laden with iniquity. A brood of evildoers, children who are corrupters!"[11], along with countless other verses that declare Israel's iniquity including Isaiah 64:6. Many Jews see no contradiction and view the descriptions of Israel's iniquity as being hyperbolic. This is in contrast to the Christian doctrine of Supersessionism.

In addition, Christians argue that if the "servant" were Israel, verse 10 ("It pleased the LORD to bruise him") would thereby be illogical because it entails God enjoying the sufferings of His elect people, which would seem to have no purpose, whereas the suffering of Jesus would ultimately mean an absolution of sin and victory for mankind.[11] It has also been argued that the nation of Israel, even through all of its suffering and torment can not have "atoned" for the sins of mankind because they were not guiltless.[11]

Most Jewish scholars equate the phrase "It pleased..." with the concept of divine kingship. All royal acts in an absolute kingdom take place at the "pleasure" of the king, regardless of whether they bring the king actual joy or not. Additionally, Jewish theologians contend that one need not be guiltless for his suffering to have meaning.


Secondly, Mike, I would mention that Isaiah uses the term "Israel" about 75 times in the book, and refers to Israel as God's "people" about the same number of times, so using "he" and "him" in reference to the NATION of israel would seem confusing to me.

The use of the word "servant" is mostly used in reference to an individual. Many times in Isaiah it is the man known as Israel (or Jacob) but it is also even used regarding Nebuchadnezzar. So, IMO, to try to take every reference of Israel or "my servant" to be the nation of Israel would require considerable stretching.

================================

Finally, Mike, please remember that Jesus quoted from Isaiah Himself:
• Is. 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is UPON ME; BECAUSE THE LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; 2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;



Jesus clearly knew who He was.

Do you need further evidence that Gods servant is Israel ? And not Christ like you are trying to say.

Isa 41:8 But you, Israel, are My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham, My friend;

Isa 41:9 whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called you from its sides. And I said to you, You are My servant; I have chosen you, and not cast you away.

Isa 42:1 Behold My Servant, whom I uphold; My Elect, in whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit on Him; He shall bring out judgment to the nations.

Isa 42:19 Who is blind but My servant? Or deaf, as My messenger whom I sent? Who is blind as he who is perfect, and blind as Jehovah's servant?

Isa 43:10 You are My witnesses, says Jehovah, and My servant whom I have chosen; that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me no God was formed, nor shall there be after Me.

Isa 44:2 So says Jehovah who made you, and formed you from the womb, who will help you; Fear not, O Jacob My servant, and you, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen.

Isa 44:21 Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for you are My servant; I have formed you; you are My servant; O Israel, you shall not be forgotten by Me.

Isa 49:3 and said to Me, You are My servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.

Isa 49:5 And now, says Jehovah who formed Me from the womb to be His servant, to bring Jacob again to Him, Though Israel is not gathered, yet I shall be glorious in the eyes of Jehovah, and My God shall be My strength.

Isa 49:6 And He said, It is but a little thing that You should be My servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to bring back the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You for a light to the nations, to be My salvation to the end of the earth.

Isa 52:13 Behold, My Servant shall rule well; He shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.

Isa 53:11 He shall see the fruit of the travail of His soul. He shall be fully satisfied. By His knowledge shall My righteous Servant justify for many; and He shall bear their iniquities.

Jer 25:9 behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, says Jehovah, and Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, My servant; and will bring them against this land, and against its people, and against all these nations all around. And I will completely destroy them, and make them a waste, and a hissing, and everlasting ruins.

Jer 27:6 And now I have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, My servant. And I have also given him the beast of the field to serve him.

Jer 30:10 And you, O My servant Jacob, do not fear, says Jehovah. Do not be terrified, O Israel. For lo, I will save you from afar, and your seed from the land of their captivity. And Jacob shall return, and shall be in rest, and be quiet, and none shall make him afraid

See how it all fits ?

It is clear who the servant is, Even though sometimes the servant is referred to as a he or she.

[DispensationalJim]

Do you need further evidence that Gods servant is Israel ? And not Christ like you are trying to say.



See how it all fits ?

It is clear who the servant is, Even though sometimes the servant is referred to as a he or she.

Sorry, AA, but I think you missed the main point of my post...
"The concept of a suffering messiah, Messiah ben Joseph, has been a part of Judaism since before the Christian era."

Since Judaism (according to that article) considered Isaiah 53 as a prophecy of the Messiah UNTIL AFTER Jesus came, IMO, that nullifies your claim. They simply chose to "re-spin" their "doctrine" once they saw that Christianity accepted Jesus as the Messiah,

The other point was that Israel, the individual (whose name was originally Jacob), was ALSO a servant of God along with several other individuals like Isaiah, and Eliakim, and David.
• Gen. 32:28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
• Is. 20:3 And the LORD said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia;
• Is. 22:20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:
• Is. 37:35 For I will defend this city to save it for mine own sake, and for my servant David’s sake.

============================

Here are verses showing a servant of God SEPARATE from Israel in the same verse:
• Is. 44:1 Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen:
• Is. 49:5 And now, saith the LORD that formed me (Isaiah speaking?) from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.
• Is. 49:6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth. 7 Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.

==========================

Finally, Judaism apparently considered the individual man Israel to also be a "type" of Christ/Messiah in prophecy, as was Adam, Noah, David, etc., etc. just as Christianity does today.

===========================

While I believe this discussion is very relevant, dear AA, I think we need to get back to the actual issue of The Trinity before they accuse us of side-tracking this thread again.

[DRS]

I thought i would chime in on Isaiah 53:10

It was questioned wether Jehovah would delight in crushing messiah

Just before Jesus was taken cpative and killed he prayed regarding the cup that if it was possible for it to pass then let it happen, but not as he willed but as God willed

Showing what happeneded needed to happened we are told the future results to come so we can see why God delighted in it

Jesus does have seed, when he replaced Adam as the father of mankind (we live in Jesus) he basically got seed

[CMike11]

Prophets in general is written very flowerly and poetically. It was written by the individual prophet. That is why it is vulnerable to such misinterpretation.

For example, it can say that the jews will prosper, the days will be like rainbows, and there will be gold at the other end of the rainbow.

That doesn't meant that there will be necessarily actual gold on the other side of the rainbow. It's poetry.

The most authority in Judaism are the five books of Judaism, prophets are part of the Torah, but they are not THE torah. There is a world of difference.

G-D made it very clear what the criteria for the messiah are.

They are in Ezekiel. If you like I can post it here and Michah

They are:

* The rebuilding of the temple which will stand forever. And yes it's an actual, physical temple

* Bringing all the jews to Israel where they will stay

* World peace

* All nations worshipping one G-D

* One recongized king accepted by all the jews.

It's really that simple. When ALL these criteria will be fulfilled we will have our messiah.

Also, the messiah will be a mortal man, not a divine being.

[Warrior4God]

Prophets in general is written very flowerly and poetically. It was written by the individual prophet. That is why it is vulnerable to such misinterpretation.

For example, it can say that the jews will prosper, the days will be like rainbows, and there will be gold at the other end of the rainbow.

That doesn't meant that there will be necessarily actual gold on the other side of the rainbow. It's poetry.

The most authority in Judaism are the five books of Judaism, prophets are part of the Torah, but they are not THE torah. There is a world of difference.

G-D made it very clear what the criteria for the messiah are.

They are in Ezekiel. If you like I can post it here and Michah

They are:

* The rebuilding of the temple which will stand forever. And yes it's an actual, physical temple

* Bringing all the jews to Israel where they will stay

* World peace

* All nations worshipping one G-D

* One recongized king accepted by all the jews.

It's really that simple. When ALL these criteria will be fulfilled we will have our messiah.

Also, the messiah will be a mortal man, not a divine being.

CMike11 there are theads that deal with whether you believe Jesus is the Messiah and prophesies about him.............but this is not that thread as this deals with the trinity within christian theology and you made your point that you don't believe that christianity has anything to do with you.(at least it appears that way)

may I please ask if you would mind not derailing the thread.


I have a hard enough time keeping up with DJim,TJim,ralittlefield and drmilo just to name a few.


I know you have every right to post here but I am just asking.

[Warrior4God]

Yep! I think D-Jim has made a good case for this point in previous posts.

I read the case he made but I don't think the case was made IMO.

I still believe after alot of looking into it that the corruption IMO showed up in the 1600's.


I know he believes he did and mean no disrespect towards DJim.

[Warrior4God]

Jesus does have seed, when he replaced Adam as the father of mankind (we live in Jesus) he basically got seed

What do you mean here?
That we are of the seed of Jesus?

To be Jesus's seed he would have to be the father right?

[Angryamerican]

CMike11 there are theads that deal with whether you believe Jesus is the Messiah and prophesies about him.............but this is not that thread as this deals with the trinity within christian theology and you made your point that you don't believe that christianity has anything to do with you.(at least it appears that way)

may I please ask if you would mind not derailing the thread.


I have a hard enough time keeping up with DJim,TJim,ralittlefield and drmilo just to name a few.


I know you have every right to post here but I am just asking.

Warrior he is saying if Jesus is not the messiah ,he can't be God and there is no trinity. How is that derailing this thread that has been all over the map about who Christ is?

[Angryamerican]

Prophets in general is written very flowerly and poetically. It was written by the individual prophet. That is why it is vulnerable to such misinterpretation.

For example, it can say that the jews will prosper, the days will be like rainbows, and there will be gold at the other end of the rainbow.

That doesn't meant that there will be necessarily actual gold on the other side of the rainbow. It's poetry.

The most authority in Judaism are the five books of Judaism, prophets are part of the Torah, but they are not THE torah. There is a world of difference.

G-D made it very clear what the criteria for the messiah are.

They are in Ezekiel. If you like I can post it here and Michah

They are:

* The rebuilding of the temple which will stand forever. And yes it's an actual, physical temple

* Bringing all the jews to Israel where they will stay

* World peace

* All nations worshipping one G-D

* One recongized king accepted by all the jews.

It's really that simple. When ALL these criteria will be fulfilled we will have our messiah.

Also, the messiah will be a mortal man, not a divine being.

In a nutshell mike :clap:

[Angryamerican]

What do you mean here?
That we are of the seed of Jesus?

To be Jesus's seed he would have to be the father right?

Good point warrior.

[CMike11]

CMike11 there are theads that deal with whether you believe Jesus is the Messiah and prophesies about him.............but this is not that thread as this deals with the trinity within christian theology and you made your point that you don't believe that christianity has anything to do with you.(at least it appears that way)

may I please ask if you would mind not derailing the thread.


I have a hard enough time keeping up with DJim,TJim,ralittlefield and drmilo just to name a few..

1) If Jesus can not be the messiah mentioned in Jewish scripture, he is not the subject in Psalms.

2) He is not the subject in psalms 53

3) The subject is Israel which is clearly mentioned right before and after 53. It's the same prophesy

4) You can make a chart to keep track of all of this:))

[CMike11]

In a nutshell mike :clap:

Thank you.

[DispensationalJim]

1) If Jesus can not be the messiah mentioned in Jewish scripture, he is not the subject in Psalms.

2) He is not the subject in psalms 53

3) The subject is Israel which is clearly mentioned right before and after 53. It's the same prophesy

4) You can make a chart to keep track of all of this:))

Excuse me, Mike, but we were discussing ISAIAH 53, not Psalms 42.

And, Mike, do you acknowledge the quoted article I posted from the Wikipedia link (post #14572) stating that the Jewish theologians actually considered Isaiah 53 to be about the Messiah long before Christianity started?

If that is true, why do you suppose the Jewish leaders would change their mind about Isaiah 53 after Christianity began?

[CMike11]

Excuse me, Mike, but we were discussing ISAIAH 53, not Psalms 42.

And, Mike, do you acknowledge the quoted article I posted from the Wikipedia link (post #14572) stating that the Jewish theologians actually considered Isaiah 53 to be about the Messiah long before Christianity started?

If that is true, why do you suppose the Jewish leaders would change their mind about Isaiah 53 after Christianity began?

Sorry I meant Isaiah.

No, that passsage was not about the messiah, it's about what will happen to Israel.

They are prohesies, they prophesize good things, and bad things.

[DispensationalJim]

Sorry I meant Isaiah.

No, that passsage was not about the messiah, it's about what will happen to Israel.

They are prohesies, they prophesize good things, and bad things.

So why then, Mike, did the Jewish theologians think Is. 53 was about the Messiah until Christianity began?

[Angryamerican]

So why then, Mike, did the Jewish theologians think Is. 53 was about the Messiah until Christianity began?

What jewish theologians ?

[DispensationalJim]

What jewish theologians ?

You apparently didn't bother to read my post #14572.

[DRS]

What do you mean here?
That we are of the seed of Jesus?

To be Jesus's seed he would have to be the father right?

Those who will survive the judgement, all based on their having faith that Jesus was the messiah sent by God and showed this in word and deed are made alive and kept alive.

Just as all are dying in Adam all are made alive in Jesus hence Jesus replaces Adam as the father of mankind and can take the prophectic title Eternal Father

Jehovah God is still the ultimate Father, this title on Jesus is much like when Paul calls Abraham the father of all having faith

[CMike11]

So why then, Mike, did the Jewish theologians think Is. 53 was about the Messiah until Christianity began?

They didn't.

[DRS]

They didn't.

Really?

Sanhedrin 98b

“The Messiah—what is his name?

The Rabbis say, The leprous one

[CMike11]

Really?

Sanhedrin 98b

“The Messiah—what is his name?

The Rabbis say, The leprous one

1) Please provide context?

And entire paragraph with the link would be nice.

2) What does that have to do with anything?

[doc-deke]

They didn't.


There is much info on this subject at http://www.chaim.org/nation.htm

The following excerpt quotes
"The eminent scholar Raphael Patai, who "taught Hebrew at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem" speaking on on the "Two Messiah Theory," which was held by some ancient rabbis and the Essenes:


When one studies rabbinic views of the Messiah one finds something very interesting. Many ancient rabbis spoke of two Messiahs, one who was the "Son of David" and another who was the "Son of Joseph." Though one can find the sufferings of Messiah attributed to the sufferings of the Davidic Messiah in many rabbinic writings, often a second Messiah is posited, the "Son of Joseph" or "Son of Ephraim," who is the one who suffers while the Davidic Messiah conquers. The rabbis struggled with Biblical portraits of a suffering Messiah, as found in Isaiah 53 and other places, and portraits of a conquering Messiah, also found in the Hebrew Bible. They posited two Messiahs, but could it not also be reasonable to believe there is just one Messiah but two aspects of his mission, a suffering aspect and a conquering aspect?

The eminent scholar Raphael Patai, who "taught Hebrew at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem" and served as Professor of Anthropology at Dropsie University,1said this of the two-messiah theory:

"When the death of the Messiah became an established tenet in Talmudic times, this was felt to be irreconcilable with the belief in the Messiah as Redeemer who would usher in the blissful millennium of the Messianic Age. The dilemma was solved by splitting the person of the Messiah in two: one of them, called Messiah ben Joseph, was to raise the armies of Israel against their enemies, and, after many victories and miracles, would fall victim Gog and Magog. The other, Messiah ben David, will come after him (in some legends will bring him back to life, which psychologically hints at the identity of the two), and will lead Israel to the ultimate victory, the triumph, and the Messianic era of bliss."2

source:

http://www.chaim.org/2messiah.htm


The resurrection of Yeshua ben Joseph, ben David, which fulfilled Psalm 16:10, also made possible the suffering and the reigning of the One Messiah.

[DRS]

1) Please provide context?

And entire paragraph with the link would be nice.

2) What does that have to do with anything?

How about you backing up your statement, with someone other than Rashi and from the time, there are plenty of references i can provide for other rabbis saying it was messianic, but only after you provide your proof

[DispensationalJim]

They didn't.

Wikipedia disagrees, as i quoted earlier.

[DispensationalJim]

There is much info on this subject at http://www.chaim.org/nation.htm

The following excerpt quotes
"The eminent scholar Raphael Patai, who "taught Hebrew at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem" speaking on on the "Two Messiah Theory," which was held by some ancient rabbis and the Essenes:


When one studies rabbinic views of the Messiah one finds something very interesting. Many ancient rabbis spoke of two Messiahs, one who was the "Son of David" and another who was the "Son of Joseph." Though one can find the sufferings of Messiah attributed to the sufferings of the Davidic Messiah in many rabbinic writings, often a second Messiah is posited, the "Son of Joseph" or "Son of Ephraim," who is the one who suffers while the Davidic Messiah conquers. The rabbis struggled with Biblical portraits of a suffering Messiah, as found in Isaiah 53 and other places, and portraits of a conquering Messiah, also found in the Hebrew Bible. They posited two Messiahs, but could it not also be reasonable to believe there is just one Messiah but two aspects of his mission, a suffering aspect and a conquering aspect?

The eminent scholar Raphael Patai, who "taught Hebrew at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem" and served as Professor of Anthropology at Dropsie University,1said this of the two-messiah theory:

"When the death of the Messiah became an established tenet in Talmudic times, this was felt to be irreconcilable with the belief in the Messiah as Redeemer who would usher in the blissful millennium of the Messianic Age. The dilemma was solved by splitting the person of the Messiah in two: one of them, called Messiah ben Joseph, was to raise the armies of Israel against their enemies, and, after many victories and miracles, would fall victim Gog and Magog. The other, Messiah ben David, will come after him (in some legends will bring him back to life, which psychologically hints at the identity of the two), and will lead Israel to the ultimate victory, the triumph, and the Messianic era of bliss."2

source:

http://www.chaim.org/2messiah.htm


The resurrection of Yeshua ben Joseph, ben David, which fulfilled Psalm 16:10, also made possible the suffering and the reigning of the One Messiah.

Thank you very much, doc, for posting all of that information which cooberates what I posted from Wikipedia, and which shows that AngryAmerican and cMike11 might need to do some more research.

[CMike11]

That is not a quote from Sanhedrin, that is a quote from whomever has that site you posted from, who has grossly distorted the scriputure.

Once again, can I have the passage in Sanhedrin you are referring too please?

I really don't care about the creative interpretations of it.

There are two Messiah's, the messiah ben yossef, is only a prelude to the messiah ben david. The messiah ben david is the the one who will fulfill the prophesies.

The messiah ben yossef doesn't have that much signficance.

[CMike11]

Wikipedia disagrees, as i quoted earlier.

Why should I care about what Wikpedia writes about this?

[CMike11]

How about you backing up your statement, with someone other than Rashi and from the time, there are plenty of references i can provide for other rabbis saying it was messianic, but only after you provide your proof

I did, I gave the text right before 53 and right after 53, which clearly states this one long prophesy is about Israel.

Also, G-D, clearly spelled out right before and right after 53, that the "servant" he was talking about is Israel.

[DispensationalJim]

Why should I care about what Wikpedia writes about this?

How about all those quotes from Jewish rabbis quoted by doc-deke?

[CMike11]

How about all those quotes from Jewish rabbis quoted by doc-deke?

You can find a "jew" to say anything, that doesn't mean it's right.

There are "jews" who are part of Jews for Jesus.

Just being a jew, and some website calling them an "eminent scholor" doesn't make them so, not does it give credibilty to their arguments.

[DRS]

I did, I gave the text right before 53 and right after 53, which clearly states this one long prophesy is about Israel.

Also, G-D, clearly spelled out right before and right after 53, that the "servant" he was talking about is Israel.

no what you are doing is giving your view, you are not backing up your statement that no jewish theologian has said this about the messiah

there are plenty of places where it is ascribed to messiah

just because you suscribe to rashi's view who lived a 1000 years after Jesus this does not reflect waht jews earlier had stated regarding the 53 chapter of Isaiah

So here is the link with all the refences

http://www.hopeinmessiah.org/Isaiah%2053.htm

[CMike11]

Here is proof that Isaiah was referring to Israel as G-D's servant

From Isaiah 49:

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/15980/jewish/Chapter-49.htm


Yeshayahu - Chapter 49

1. Hearken, you islands, to me, and listen closely, you nations, from afar; the Lord called me from the womb, from the innards of my mother He mentioned my name.

2. And He made my mouth like a sharp sword, He concealed me in the shadow of His hand; and He made me into a polished arrow, He hid me in His quiver.

3. And He said to me, "You are My servant, Israel, about whom I will boast."
4. And I said, "I toiled in vain, I consumed my strength for nought and vanity." Yet surely my right is with the Lord, and my deed is with my God.


5. And now, the Lord, Who formed me from the womb as a servant to Him, said to bring Jacob back to Him, and Israel shall be gathered to Him, and I will be honored in the eyes of the Lord, and my God was my strength.

6. And He said, "It is too light for you to be My servant, to establish the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the besieged of Israel, but I will make you a light of nations, so that My salvation shall be until the end of the earth."

7. So said the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One, about him who is despised of men, about him whom the nation abhors, about a slave of rulers, "Kings shall see and rise, princes, and they shall prostrate themselves, for the sake of the Lord Who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel, and He chose you."

[CMike11]

no what you are doing is giving your view, you are not backing up your statement that no jewish theologian has said this about the messiah

there are plenty of places where it is ascribed to messiah

just because you suscribe to rashi's view who lived a 1000 years after Jesus this does not reflect waht jews earlier had stated regarding the 53 chapter of Isaiah

So here is the link with all the refences

http://www.hopeinmessiah.org/Isaiah%2053.htm

My reference is the actual text, verbatim.

It speaks for itself, wouldn't you say?

This is from Isaiah 53, it's speaking about the same servant -- Israel

11. From the toil of his soul he would see, he would be satisfied; with his knowledge My servant would vindicate the just for many, and their iniquities he would bear.

[CMike11]

no what you are doing is giving your view, you are not backing up your statement that no jewish theologian has said this about the messiah

there are plenty of places where it is ascribed to messiah

just because you suscribe to rashi's view who lived a 1000 years after Jesus this does not reflect waht jews earlier had stated regarding the 53 chapter of Isaiah

So here is the link with all the refences

http://www.hopeinmessiah.org/Isaiah%2053.htm

BTW In this discussion I don't even recall mentioning Rashi.

[DispensationalJim]

no what you are doing is giving your view, you are not backing up your statement that no jewish theologian has said this about the messiah

there are plenty of places where it is ascribed to messiah

just because you suscribe to rashi's view who lived a 1000 years after Jesus this does not reflect waht jews earlier had stated regarding the 53 chapter of Isaiah

So here is the link with all the refences

http://www.hopeinmessiah.org/Isaiah%2053.htm

Well, thank you, DRS, for your support.

It's nice to be "on the same side" once in awhile, don't you think? :razz:

[CMike11]

no what you are doing is giving your view, you are not backing up your statement that no jewish theologian has said this about the messiah

there are plenty of places where it is ascribed to messiah

just because you suscribe to rashi's view who lived a 1000 years after Jesus this does not reflect waht jews earlier had stated regarding the 53 chapter of Isaiah

So here is the link with all the refences

http://www.hopeinmessiah.org/Isaiah%2053.htm

Not any of these so called "referenes" that I read can use the actual scripture to prove its point.

The scripture speaks for itself.

What is so difficult here?

[DRS]

BTW In this discussion I don't even recall mentioning Rashi.

Everytime you want to argue with Christian thought you use slanted scriptures with
Rashi's commentary

You can look up the references i posted if you wish but the fact is 52:13 -53 are messianic

Do orthodox jews even believe in a messian anymore since they try wittle messianic scrptures down or do they feel they are the messiah

[DispensationalJim]

My reference is the actual text, verbatim.

It speaks for itself, wouldn't you say?

This is from Isaiah 53, it's speaking about the same servant -- Israel

11. From the toil of his soul he would see, he would be satisfied; with his knowledge My servant would vindicate the just for many, and their iniquities he would bear.

Sorry, Mike, i just cannot see it.

Can you please tell me if this next passage is about the nation of Israel? If you think so, please give me a detailed explanation, cause it sure looks like Messiah to me.

• Is. 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. 2 He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. 3 A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. 4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.

==========================
And I would like to repeat what I posted to AA earlier:


Israel, the PERSON (whose name was originally Jacob), was ALSO a servant of God along with several other individuals like Isaiah, and Eliakim, and David.
• Gen. 32:28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
• Is. 20:3 And the LORD said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia;
• Is. 22:20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:
• Is. 37:35 For I will defend this city to save it for mine own sake, and for my servant David’s sake.
• Is. 41:8 But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.

============================

Here are verses showing a servant of God SEPARATE from Israel in the SAME verse:
• Is. 44:1 Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen:
• Is. 49:5 And now, saith the LORD that formed me (Isaiah speaking?) from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.
• Is. 49:6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth. 7 Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.

So, Mike, who is "THE HOLY ONE"? I find Him mentioned in 36 OT verses, including the ones just quoted.

=========================

Mike, may I ask you to give us some verses that you will acknowledge DO prophecy of THE MESSIAH, please?

[Poisonshady313]

==========================
And I would like to repeat what I posted to AA earlier:


Israel, the PERSON (whose name was originally Jacob), was ALSO a servant of God along with several other individuals like Isaiah, and Eliakim, and David.
• Gen. 32:28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
• Is. 20:3 And the LORD said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia;
• Is. 22:20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:
• Is. 37:35 For I will defend this city to save it for mine own sake, and for my servant David’s sake.
• Is. 41:8 But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.


Do you know how much time separates Jacob (Abraham's grandson), and Isaiah? Do you truly believe that in Isaiah 41, God is addressing one individual person who had died several centuries earlier?

[CMike11]

Everytime you want to argue with Christian thought you use slanted scriptures with
Rashi's commentary

You can look up the references i posted if you wish but the fact is 52:13 -53 are messianic

Do orthodox jews even believe in a messian anymore since they try wittle messianic scrptures down or do they feel they are the messiah

Please point out where I am giving Rash's or any other commentary.

I am posting the scripture, without any commentary.

This is the actual source material.

[CMike11]

These are the prophesies of the messiah and what the messiah will do once he comes. My commentary in green.

Michah 4

3. And he shall judge between many peoples and reprove mighty nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nations shall not lift the sword against nation; neither shall they learn war anymore. (World Peace)


Ezekiel 37

12. Therefore, prophesy and say to them, So says the Lord God: Lo! I open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves as My people, and bring you home to the land of Israel.
13. Then you shall know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and lead you up out of your graves as My people. (ressurection of the dead)



14. And I will put My spirit into you, and you shall live, and I will set you on your land, and you shall know that I, the Lord, have spoken it and have performed it," says the Lord.
15. And the word of the Lord came to me, saying:
16. "And you, son of man, take for yourself one stick and write upon it, 'For Judah and for the children of Israel his companions'; and take one stick and write upon it, 'For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and all the house of Israel, his companions.'
17. And bring them close, one to the other into one stick, and they shall be one in your hand.
18. And when the children of your people say to you, saying, 'Will you not tell us what these are to you?'
19. Say to them, So says the Lord God: Behold I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim and the tribes of Israel his companions, and I will place them with him with the stick of Judah, and I will make them into one stick, and they shall become one in My hand.
20. And the sticks upon which you shall write shall be in your hand before their eyes.
21. And say to them, So says the Lord God: Behold I will take the children of Israel from among the nations where they have gone, and I will gather them from every side, and I will bring them to their land.(Bringing all the jews to Israel)


22. And I will make them into one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel, and one king shall be to them all as a king; and they shall no longer be two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms anymore.(one regonized kind of Israel)



23. And they shall no longer defile themselves with their idols, with their detestable things, or with all their transgressions, and I will save them from all their habitations in which they have sinned, and I will purify them, and they shall be to Me as a people, and I will be to them as a God.

24. And My servant David shall be king over them, and one shepherd shall be for them all, and they shall walk in My ordinances and observe My statutes and perform them.(A descendent of David)

25. And they shall dwell on the land that I have given to My servant, to Jacob, wherein your forefathers lived; and they shall dwell upon it, they and their children and their children's children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever.(The jews will stay in Israel forever)


26. And I will form a covenant of peace for them, an everlasting covenant shall be with them; and I will establish them and I will multiply them, and I will place My Sanctuary in their midst forever.
27. And My dwelling place shall be over them, and I will be to them for a God, and they shall be to Me as a people.
28. And the nations shall know that I am the Lord, Who sanctifies Israel, when My Sanctuary is in their midst forever."(The temple in jerusalem will be rebuilt and stand forever)

[CMike11]

7. So said the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One, about him who is despised of men, about him whom the nation abhors, about a slave of rulers, "Kings shall see and rise, princes, and they shall prostrate themselves, for the sake of the Lord Who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel, and He chose you."

G-D is describing himself in multiple ways, The Lord Who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel. He is both

G-D

in Chapters 20 there were different servants, in this prophesy the servant is Israel.

[DRS]

Please point out where I am giving Rash's or any other commentary.

I am posting the scripture, without any commentary.

This is the actual source material.

First of all it is speaking about one person

9*And he will make his burial place even with the wicked ones, and with the rich class in his death, despite the fact that he had done no violence and there was no deception in his mouth.

10*But Jehovah himself took delight in crushing him; he made him sick. If you will set his soul as a guilt offering, he will see his offspring, he will prolong [his] days, and in his hand what is the delight of Jehovah will succeed. 11*Because of the trouble of his soul he will see, he will be satisfied. By means of his knowledge the righteous one, my servant, will bring a righteous standing to many people; and their errors he himself will bear. 12*For that reason I shall deal him a portion among the many, and it will be with the mighty ones that he will apportion the spoil, due to the fact that he poured out his soul to the very death, and it was with the transgressors that he was counted in; and he himself carried the very sin of many people, and for the transgressors he proceeded to interpose.

The jews have never beared the sins of others

Also from earlier in the passage the jews have never suffered in silence, EVER

Jesus never whined about what happened to him and Jesus never questioned why it happened

The Jews are nothing like the faithful servent Jesus was, Jesus never got caught up in himself, putting everything aside to put Almighty God first.
Israel is mentioned

42:18*Hear, YOU deaf ones; and look forth to see, YOU blind ones. 19*Who is blind, if not my servant, and who is deaf as my messenger whom I send? Who is blind as the one rewarded, or blind as the servant of Jehovah? 20*It was a case of seeing many things, but you did not keep watching. It was a case of opening the ears, but you did not keep listening. 21*Jehovah himself for the sake of his righteousness has taken a delight in that he should magnify the law and make it majestic. 22*But it is a people plundered and pillaged, all of them being trapped in the holes, and in the houses of detention they have been kept hidden. They have come to be for plunder without a deliverer, for pillage without anyone to say: “Bring back!”

23*Who among YOU people will give ear to this? Who will pay attention and listen for later times? 24*Who has given Jacob for mere pillage, and Israel to the plunderers? Is it not Jehovah, the One against whom we have sinned, and in whose ways they did not want to walk and to whose law they did not listen? 25*So He kept pouring out upon him rage, his anger, and the strength of war. And it kept consuming him all around, but he took no note; and it kept blazing up against him, but he would lay nothing to heart.

[DispensationalJim]

First of all it is speaking about one person

9*And he will make his burial place even with the wicked ones, and with the rich class in his death, despite the fact that he had done no violence and there was no deception in his mouth.

10*But Jehovah himself took delight in crushing him; he made him sick. If you will set his soul as a guilt offering, he will see his offspring, he will prolong [his] days, and in his hand what is the delight of Jehovah will succeed. 11*Because of the trouble of his soul he will see, he will be satisfied. By means of his knowledge the righteous one, my servant, will bring a righteous standing to many people; and their errors he himself will bear. 12*For that reason I shall deal him a portion among the many, and it will be with the mighty ones that he will apportion the spoil, due to the fact that he poured out his soul to the very death, and it was with the transgressors that he was counted in; and he himself carried the very sin of many people, and for the transgressors he proceeded to interpose.

The jews have never beared the sins of others

Also from earlier in the passage the jews have never suffered in silence, EVER

Jesus never whined about what happened to him and Jesus never questioned why it happened

The Jews are nothing like the faithful servent Jesus was, Jesus never got caught up in himself, putting everything aside to put Almighty God first.
Israel is mentioned

42:18*Hear, YOU deaf ones; and look forth to see, YOU blind ones. 19*Who is blind, if not my servant, and who is deaf as my messenger whom I send? Who is blind as the one rewarded, or blind as the servant of Jehovah? 20*It was a case of seeing many things, but you did not keep watching. It was a case of opening the ears, but you did not keep listening. 21*Jehovah himself for the sake of his righteousness has taken a delight in that he should magnify the law and make it majestic. 22*But it is a people plundered and pillaged, all of them being trapped in the holes, and in the houses of detention they have been kept hidden. They have come to be for plunder without a deliverer, for pillage without anyone to say: “Bring back!”

23*Who among YOU people will give ear to this? Who will pay attention and listen for later times? 24*Who has given Jacob for mere pillage, and Israel to the plunderers? Is it not Jehovah, the One against whom we have sinned, and in whose ways they did not want to walk and to whose law they did not listen? 25*So He kept pouring out upon him rage, his anger, and the strength of war. And it kept consuming him all around, but he took no note; and it kept blazing up against him, but he would lay nothing to heart.

Good for you, DRS!

[DispensationalJim]

7. So said the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One, about him who is despised of men, about him whom the nation abhors, about a slave of rulers, "Kings shall see and rise, princes, and they shall prostrate themselves, for the sake of the Lord Who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel, and He chose you."

G-D is describing himself in multiple ways, The Lord Who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel. He is both

G-D

in Chapters 20 there were different servants, in this prophesy the servant is Israel.

I was hoping to get your comments on Is. 42:1-4 which I quoted, but you seemed to have skipped over it. Here it is again:
• Is. 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. 2 He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. 3 A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. 4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.

I am most anxious for you to show how that could be the nation of Israel.

[Tucson Jim]

CMike11 there are theads that deal with whether you believe Jesus is the Messiah and prophesies about him.............but this is not that thread as this deals with the trinity within christian theology and you made your point that you don't believe that christianity has anything to do with you.(at least it appears that way)

may I please ask if you would mind not derailing the thread.



I feel the same way Warrior.

But I guess we're in the minority.

[Tucson Jim]

I read the case he made but I don't think the case was made IMO.

I still believe after alot of looking into it that the corruption IMO showed up in the 1600's.


I know he believes he did and mean no disrespect towards DJim.

Guess we have to agree to disagree about that.

[Tucson Jim]

Warrior he is saying if Jesus is not the messiah ,he can't be God and there is no trinity.

I believe you are mistaken. Do Jews believe the messiah is God?

The issue of Jesus being the Messiah is separate from the issue of Jesus being God.

Moreover, as Warrior pointed out, there are other threads dealing with "Why the Jews don't think Jesus is the Messiah".

Why not discuss this there instead of derailing the Trinity thread?

How is that derailing this thread that has been all over the map about who Christ is?

So . . . that is a reason to derail it more???

[CMike11]

First of all it is speaking about one person

9*And he will make his burial place even with the wicked ones, and with the rich class in his death, despite the fact that he had done no violence and there was no deception in his mouth.

10*But Jehovah himself took delight in crushing him; he made him sick. If you will set his soul as a guilt offering, he will see his offspring, he will prolong [his] days, and in his hand what is the delight of Jehovah will succeed. 11*Because of the trouble of his soul he will see, he will be satisfied. By means of his knowledge the righteous one, my servant, will bring a righteous standing to many people; and their errors he himself will bear. 12*For that reason I shall deal him a portion among the many, and it will be with the mighty ones that he will apportion the spoil, due to the fact that he poured out his soul to the very death, and it was with the transgressors that he was counted in; and he himself carried the very sin of many people, and for the transgressors he proceeded to interpose.

The jews have never beared the sins of others

Also from earlier in the passage the jews have never suffered in silence, EVER

Jesus never whined about what happened to him and Jesus never questioned why it happened

The Jews are nothing like the faithful servent Jesus was, Jesus never got caught up in himself, putting everything aside to put Almighty God first.
Israel is mentioned

42:18*Hear, YOU deaf ones; and look forth to see, YOU blind ones. 19*Who is blind, if not my servant, and who is deaf as my messenger whom I send? Who is blind as the one rewarded, or blind as the servant of Jehovah? 20*It was a case of seeing many things, but you did not keep watching. It was a case of opening the ears, but you did not keep listening. 21*Jehovah himself for the sake of his righteousness has taken a delight in that he should magnify the law and make it majestic. 22*But it is a people plundered and pillaged, all of them being trapped in the holes, and in the houses of detention they have been kept hidden. They have come to be for plunder without a deliverer, for pillage without anyone to say: “Bring back!”

23*Who among YOU people will give ear to this? Who will pay attention and listen for later times? 24*Who has given Jacob for mere pillage, and Israel to the plunderers? Is it not Jehovah, the One against whom we have sinned, and in whose ways they did not want to walk and to whose law they did not listen? 25*So He kept pouring out upon him rage, his anger, and the strength of war. And it kept consuming him all around, but he took no note; and it kept blazing up against him, but he would lay nothing to heart.

This is jewish text none of it would refer to jesus.


Now I am going to give the text and rashi's commentary to put it in context

Text

9. And he gave his grave to the wicked, and to the wealthy with his kinds of death, because he committed no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.

Rashi's commentary

And he gave his grave to the wicked He subjected himself to be buried according to anything the wicked of the heathens (nations [mss., K’li Paz]) would decree upon him, for they would penalize him with death and the burial of donkeys in the intestines of the dogs.
to the wicked According to the will of the wicked, he was willing to be buried, and he would not deny the living God.


and to the wealthy with his kinds of death and to the will of the ruler he subjected himself to all kinds of death that he decreed upon him, because he did not wish to agree to (denial) [of the Torah] to commit evil and to rob like all the heathens (nations [mss., K’li Paz]) among whom he lived.


and there was no deceit in his mouth to accept idolatry (to accept a pagan deity as God [Parshandatha]).

Text

10. And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand.

Rashi's commentary below
And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill The Holy One, blessed be He, wished to crush him and to cause him to repent; therefore, he made him ill.

If his soul makes itself restitution, etc. Said the Holy One, blessed be He, “I will see, if his soul will be given and delivered with My holiness to return it to Me as restitution for all that he betrayed Me, I will pay him his recompense, and he will see children, etc.” This word אָשָׁם is an expression of ransom that one gives to the one against when he sinned, amende in O.F., to free from faults, similar to the matter mentioned in the episode of the Philistines (I Sam. 6:3), “Do not send it away empty, but you shall send back with it a guilt offering (אָשָׁם).”


42
Text
18. You deaf ones, listen, and you blind ones, look to see.

Rashi's commentary below

You deaf ones… and you blind ones He is referring to Israel.

Text
19. Who is blind but My servant, and deaf as My messenger whom I will send? He who was blind is as the one who received his payment, and he who was blind is as the servant of the Lord.


Rashi's commentary
Who is blind among you? There is no one but My servant; he is the most blind of all of you. And the most deaf among you is like My messenger whom I send to prophesy prophecies.
He who was blind is as the one who received his payment He who was blind among you has already received his chastisements, and he is as one who was paid all payments due him and has emerged cleansed.

[CMike11]

I was hoping to get your comments on Is. 42:1-4 which I quoted, but you seemed to have skipped over it. Here it is again:
• Is. 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. 2 He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. 3 A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. 4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.

I am most anxious for you to show how that could be the nation of Israel.

I realize because prophets is written so poetically and flowerly is it vulnerable to this type of misinterpretation





Isaiah 42 Text
1. Behold My servant, I will support him, My chosen one, whom My soul desires; I have placed My spirit upon him, he shall promulgate justice to the nations.

Rashi

Behold My servant, I will support him Behold My servant Jacob is not like you, for I will support him.

My chosen one Israel is called ‘My chosen one’ ([mss.:] His chosen one) (Ps. 135:4) “For the Eternal chose Jacob for Himself.” Scripture states also (infra 45:4): “For the sake of My servant Jacob and Israel My chosen one.”

whom My soul desires; I have placed My spirit upon him to let his prophets know My secret, and his end will be that ‘he shall promulgate justice to the nations,’ as it is stated (supra 2:3): “And let Him teach us of His ways etc.”

Text
2. He shall neither cry nor shall he raise [his voice]; and he shall not make his voice heard outside.


Rashi
nor shall he raise [his voice] He shall not raise his voice. It will not be necessary to admonish and to prophesy to the nations, for they will come by themselves to learn from them [i.e., from Israel], as the matter is stated (Zech. 8: 23): “Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.”

Text

3. A breaking reed he shall not break; and a flickering flaxen wick he shall not quench; with truth shall he execute justice.
A breaking reed he shall not break Jonathan paraphrases: The meek, who are like a breaking reed, shall not break, and the poor, who are like a flickering candle, shall not be quenched.

Rashi
and a flickering flaxen wick A wet flaxen wick, that is nearly extinguished. Their king will not rob the poor and will not break the poor and the weak.

Text
4. Neither shall he weaken nor shall he be broken, until he establishes justice in the land, and for his instruction, islands shall long.

Rashi
Neither shall he weaken nor shall he be broken Heb. וְלֹא יָרוּץ, like לֹא יֵרָצֵץ, he shall not be broken, “for the earth shall be full of knowledge of the Lord as water covers the seabed” (supra 11:9). And they shall obey them, as the matter is stated (Zeph. 3:9): “For then I will make the nations pure of speech etc.” That is what follows: And for his instruction islands shall long. They shall all obey his instruction.

[CMike11]

I believe you are mistaken. Do Jews believe the messiah is God?

The issue of Jesus being the Messiah is separate from the issue of Jesus being God.

Moreover, as Warrior pointed out, there are other threads dealing with "Why the Jews don't think Jesus is the Messiah".

Why not discuss this there instead of derailing the Trinity thread?



So . . . that is a reason to derail it more???

Because you are citing Isaiah passages which are being distorted.

If you want to use your own scripture I won't chime in.

[Warrior4God]

Warrior he is saying if Jesus is not the messiah ,he can't be God and there is no trinity. How is that derailing this thread that has been all over the map about who Christ is?

ok

[Warrior4God]

I think I will just wait until we are back on track here.

Ya'll behave in my absence.

Hope this runs its course swiftly.

[Warrior4God]

Because you are citing Isaiah passages which are being distorted.

If you want to use your own scripture I won't chime in.

I believe the Ot is just as much MY scripture.

In my opinion although you disagree it may be even more mine then yours as I can see Jesus Christ being the messiah and you are still waiting for something.

without the Nt and Ot together then half of scripture is missing.


Its like a car without the engine...............you may be able to sit in it and listen to the radio but its lacking power to be useful and complete.

[CMike11]

I believe the Ot is just as much MY scripture.

In my opinion although you disagree it may be even more mine then yours as I can see Jesus Christ being the messiah and you are still waiting for something.

without the Nt and Ot together then half of scripture is missing.


Its like a car without the engine...............you may be able to sit in it and listen to the radio but its lacking power to be useful and complete.

The NT has nothing to do with Judaism.

It's really very simple, the criteria for the messiah is clearly spelled out.

I posted the scripture from Michah and Ezekiel what it is.

He either did come or he didn't come.

The criteria hasn't been fulfilled thus he didn't come yet.

For jews to believe jesus is the messiah is for jews to consider G-D to be a liar.

[CMike11]

Just show how all these criteria have been fulfilled, and you got your jesus is the messiah.

This is the scripture verbatim.

Michah 4

3. And he shall judge between many peoples and reprove mighty nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nations shall not lift the sword against nation; neither shall they learn war anymore. (World Peace)


Ezekiel 37

12. Therefore, prophesy and say to them, So says the Lord God: Lo! I open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves as My people, and bring you home to the land of Israel.
13. Then you shall know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and lead you up out of your graves as My people. (ressurection of the dead)



14. And I will put My spirit into you, and you shall live, and I will set you on your land, and you shall know that I, the Lord, have spoken it and have performed it," says the Lord.
15. And the word of the Lord came to me, saying:
16. "And you, son of man, take for yourself one stick and write upon it, 'For Judah and for the children of Israel his companions'; and take one stick and write upon it, 'For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and all the house of Israel, his companions.'
17. And bring them close, one to the other into one stick, and they shall be one in your hand.
18. And when the children of your people say to you, saying, 'Will you not tell us what these are to you?'
19. Say to them, So says the Lord God: Behold I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim and the tribes of Israel his companions, and I will place them with him with the stick of Judah, and I will make them into one stick, and they shall become one in My hand.
20. And the sticks upon which you shall write shall be in your hand before their eyes.
21. And say to them, So says the Lord God: Behold I will take the children of Israel from among the nations where they have gone, and I will gather them from every side, and I will bring them to their land.(Bringing all the jews to Israel)


22. And I will make them into one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel, and one king shall be to them all as a king; and they shall no longer be two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms anymore.(one regonized king of Israel)



23. And they shall no longer defile themselves with their idols, with their detestable things, or with all their transgressions, and I will save them from all their habitations in which they have sinned, and I will purify them, and they shall be to Me as a people, and I will be to them as a God.

24. And My servant David shall be king over them, and one shepherd shall be for them all, and they shall walk in My ordinances and observe My statutes and perform them.(A descendent of David)

25. And they shall dwell on the land that I have given to My servant, to Jacob, wherein your forefathers lived; and they shall dwell upon it, they and their children and their children's children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever.(The jews will stay in Israel forever)


26. And I will form a covenant of peace for them, an everlasting covenant shall be with them; and I will establish them and I will multiply them, and I will place My Sanctuary in their midst forever.
27. And My dwelling place shall be over them, and I will be to them for a God, and they shall be to Me as a people.
28. And the nations shall know that I am the Lord, Who sanctifies Israel, when My Sanctuary is in their midst forever."(The temple in jerusalem will be rebuilt and stand forever)

[Warrior4God]

The NT has nothing to do with Judaism.

It's really very simple, the criteria for the messiah is clearly spelled out.

I posted the scripture from Michah and Ezekiel what it is.

He either did come or he didn't come.

The criteria hasn't been fulfilled thus he didn't come yet.

For jews to believe jesus is the messiah is for jews to consider G-D to be a liar.


Thats your opinion .............mine is that I believe in the God of Abraham,David,Moses,Solomon,Isaiah and all the OT heros who stood before me as well as my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Your debate on the Messiah is a moot point with me as well as to all the GREAT believers who believe in Jesus Christ whether we believe in the trinity or not.

You made your point and its pointless to keep posting that point.
We get it Mike your a jew and don't believe in Jesus.

Will all you GREAT believers in Christ Jesus stop responding to this stuff.

[CMike11]

Thats your opinion .............mine is that I believe in the God of Abraham,David,Moses,Solomon,Isaiah and all the OT heros who stood before me as well as my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Your debate on the Messiah is a moot point with me as well as to all the great believers who believe in Jesus Christ whether we believe in the trinity or not.

You made your point and its pointless to keep posting that point.
We get it Mike your a jew and don't believe in Jesus.

Will all you GREAT believers in Christ Jesus stop responding to this stuff.

I'll be happy to stop responding, as long as you don't distort jewish scripture.

Jewish scripture was given by G-D, to Jews, for Jews.

I'm happy for anybody to learn from it, but it's another story to distort it.

[DispensationalJim]

Thats your opinion .............mine is that I believe in the God of Abraham,David,Moses,Solomon,Isaiah and all the OT heros who stood before me as well as my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Your debate on the Messiah is a moot point with me as well as to all the GREAT believers who believe in Jesus Christ whether we believe in the trinity or not.

You made your point and its pointless to keep posting that point.
We get it Mike your a jew and don't believe in Jesus.

Will all you GREAT believers in Christ Jesus stop responding to this stuff.

I will apologize for participating in this "side-tracking" of the Trinity thread.

I thought I saw an opportunity to show how the Jewish folks were "missing it" but -- alas -- it appears to have been a futile effort, so I, too, will withdraw from that particular debate and focus back on the Trinity.

I think I was the one who actually got it stated by quoting from Is. 53 to support the Trinity and it kinda "blew up." Sorry about that.

Anyhow, I agree with Warrior and T-Jim. LET'S RESUME THE TRINITY DISCUSSION, OK?

[Tucson Jim]

Because you are citing Isaiah passages which are being distorted.

You must have me confused with D-Jim.

I consider this whole Messiah discussion to be a derailing of the thread and refuse to participate in it.

If you want to use your own scripture I won't chime in.

I'll use any scripture I want . . . It's not your scripture, it's God's word.

[Tucson Jim]

I think I will just wait until we are back on track here.

Ya'll behave in my absence.

Hope this runs its course swiftly.

For once we agree completely!

[Tucson Jim]

I believe the Ot is just as much MY scripture.

In my opinion although you disagree it may be even more mine then yours as I can see Jesus Christ being the messiah and you are still waiting for something.

without the Nt and Ot together then half of scripture is missing.


Its like a car without the engine...............you may be able to sit in it and listen to the radio but its lacking power to be useful and complete.

Amen Warrior!

[CMike11]

You must have me confused with D-Jim.

I consider this whole Messiah discussion to be a derailing of the thread and refuse to participate in it.



I'll use any scripture I want . . . It's not your scripture, it's God's word.

And I have every right to set the record staight.

[Tucson Jim]

And I have every right to set the record staight.

There's no "setting the record straight" here. There's just you telling us what you believe.

[CMike11]

There's no "setting the record straight" here. There's just you telling us what you believe.

I disagree. The Torah isn't subjective.

[DRS]

And I have every right to set the record staight.

You have not set anything straight, being jewish does not brillant insight into scriptures written by men who happened to be jewish.

Those men whom were used were inspired of God and were servents of God first and foremost.

Judaism is not the end game it does not even hold in it a hope for all mankind to get back to the original purpose that God created us for.

Judaism does nto even take the time to study the mistakes by those the scriptures instead out of pride they seek to justify things.

[Koushi Shinigami]

I thought God wrote the whole thing himself.

[Poisonshady313]

it does not even hold in it a hope for all mankind to get back to the original purpose that God created us for. The original purpose that God created us for is to subdue the earth and love each other. This is what Judaism teaches... how to love God, and how to love each other... how to sanctify the mundane... to elevate that which is low and make it holy... just as God took mud and made it into a man. The awaited messiah is the hope for all mankind to get back to the original purpose. This doesn't mean that all people will become Jewish... it simply means that all people will recognize and love God... and all nations of the world will come to the Temple in Jerusalem to serve the same God.

Judaism does nto even take the time to study the mistakes by those the scriptures instead out of pride they seek to justify things.

You know not of what you speak.

[CMike11]

You have not set anything straight, being jewish does not brillant insight into scriptures written by men who happened to be jewish..

I used scripture to show what the scripture says, if you chose to ignore it that's not my onus.

I showed it you. You are ignoring it. :boohoo:

Those men whom were used were inspired of God and were servents of God first and foremost.

Not sure who you are talking about, but the prophets were inspired by G-D.

Judaism is not the end game it does not even hold in it a hope for all mankind to get back to the original purpose that God created us for. .

Part of the messianic prophesy, is that when the messiah comes all nations will serve one G-D. That is the original purpose.

Judaism does nto even take the time to study the mistakes by those the scriptures instead out of pride they seek to justify things.

Don't know what you are talking about.:think:

[Warrior4God]

What I love is that there are different doctrines but one thing is for sure is that we believers believe in Jesus Christ and that Gods Son is our redeemer and messiah.

Others can reject him as the messiah but I not only believe he is but I have staked my life on it.

Lord I believe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There will come a day when Christ returns that every eye will see and every knee will bow before Gods Son.

God help all those who reject Jesus as Lord ,for there is no other way to salvation.


I have read and looked into the claims of the jews who reject Christ and I see too much proof to me that Christ is the way,the truth and the life.

I will not debate this as it is pointless and I am to avoid these type of things.

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

1Ti 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
1Ti 6:4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
1Ti 6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.


Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Rom 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.


As for me and my house we will serve the Lord.

[Reeder]

What I love is that there are different doctrines but one thing is for sure is that we believers believe in Jesus Christ and that Gods Son is our redeemer and messiah.

Others can reject him as the messiah but I not only believe he is but I have staked my life on it.

Lord I believe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There will come a day when Christ returns that every eye will see and every knee will bow before Gods Son.

God help all those who reject Jesus as Lord ,for there is no other way to salvation.


I have read and looked into the claims of the jews who reject Christ and I see too much proof to me that Christ is the way,the truth and the life.

I will not debate this as it is pointless and I am to avoid these type of things.

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

1Ti 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
1Ti 6:4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
1Ti 6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.


Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Rom 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.


As for me and my house we will serve the Lord.

:clap:

Jesus is the Savior of mankind! That is one thing most of us have in common, despite our differences.

Well said, Warrior!

[Warrior4God]

Heck just one more thing..................

I have read the debate between some of the jewish posters here and Djim and I gotta say to the jewish posters that it would be in your best interest to stop now because Djim has stood in the gap and I am proud he is a believer.

Just my view of what has transpired.

[Koushi Shinigami]

:eh:

[Reeder]

I'm sure DJim is very knowledgable when it comes to his theology. But I don't think its fair to say that our Jewish friends don't have as much knowledge about God as DJim. That would be a very ignorant thing to believe. We all see things differently. Most of us believe differently. Let us keep it at that and not assume any of us is better than anyone else.

1 Sam. 16: 7

7 But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.

I think its fair to say that our Jewish friends believe differently than many of us. And when it comes to Jewish beliefs and doctrine, I'm sure a non-Jew doesn't stand a chance as far as "knowledge" goes. I don't agree with many of the Christian guests on these forums, either. That does not mean I know more about God than they do.

[Warrior4God]

I'm sure DJim is very knowledgable when it comes to his theology. But I don't think its fair to say that our Jewish friends don't have as much knowledge about God as DJim. That would be a very ignorant thing to believe. We all see things differently. Most of us believe differently. Let us keep it at that and not assume any of us is better than anyone else.

1 Sam. 16: 7

7 But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.

I think its fair to say that our Jewish friends believe differently than many of us. And when it comes to Jewish beliefs and doctrine, I'm sure a non-Jew doesn't stand a chance as far as "knowledge" goes. I don't agree with many of the Christian guests on these forums, either. That does not mean I know more about God than they do.

I think you took the post wrong.

DJim has been a believer for over 50 years and has studied more then all of us...that much I feel safe to say.


I edited the post because I see how you could think I was saying something other then what I meant.

My apologies.

[Reeder]

I think you took the post wrong.

DJim has been a believer for over 50 years and has studied more then all of us...that much I feel safe to say.


I edited the post because I see how you could think I was saying something other then what I meant.

My apologies.

But the only thing I can think of in response to that is "So what?"

[DRS]

I used scripture to show what the scripture says, if you chose to ignore it that's not my onus.

I showed it you. You are ignoring it. :boohoo:



Not sure who you are talking about, but the prophets were inspired by G-D.



Part of the messianic prophesy, is that when the messiah comes all nations will serve one G-D. That is the original purpose.



Don't know what you are talking about.:think:


What you ignore maybe due to lack of knowledge maybe because you just do not want to see is there are messianic prophecy.

I am willing to say it is not willfull on your part for there are many passages that are missed the first being in Genesis 3:15

I agree when messiah returns all will worship God for a time and unlike Judaism seems to teach there is one law for all not 7 laws for one group and 613 another

Of course as a Christian I already know there is one standard all are judged by

[DispensationalJim]

I think you took the post wrong.

DJim has been a believer for over 50 years and has studied more then all of us...that much I feel safe to say.


I edited the post because I see how you could think I was saying something other then what I meant.

My apologies.

Warrior, I am almost speechless. That was most kind of you.

Yes, I have been studying God's Word and hundreds of related Bible versions and books, etc. for at least 50 years, BUT, I must admit that most of you folks have impressed me with your thoughts and comments and I really feel I have learned a great deal from just about everyone of you.

So, I would like to say that IMO no matter how much any one of us studies about any given subject or doctrine, it seems to me that there is always still more to learn.

And I must add that my Junior and Senior years of High School back in Ohio were at a school that was in a predominantly Jewish community. I became good friends with several of my Jewish classmates. I had just accepted Jesus as my Savior, and so I had lots of "Biblical" questions for them. Though I was only trying to learn from them (as opposed to trying to preach to them), only a couple of them seemed willing to actually respond to my queries. But, in my graduating class of 500+ in 1956, I think the top 12 or so GPAs were all Jews and I was 23rd! A couple of them went on to become rather well known in the music field.

I believe the problem we have in debating our Jewish posters (like Mike, Harmonious, and Poison) is that we have two very DIFFERENT Bibles, so IMO it is like debating apples and oranges.

Anyway, Warrior, thank you for those "generous" comments.

[CMike11]

What I love is that there are different doctrines but one thing is for sure is that we believers believe in Jesus Christ and that Gods Son is our redeemer and messiah.

Others can reject him as the messiah but I not only believe he is but I have staked my life on it.

Lord I believe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There will come a day when Christ returns that every eye will see and every knee will bow before Gods Son.

God help all those who reject Jesus as Lord ,for there is no other way to salvation.

.

Sure there is, repentance.

There are five major steps. Hope this helps.


http://www.myjewishlearning.com/holidays/Yom_Kippur/Overview_Yom_Kippur_Theology/Repentance/SpiralingToRepentance.htm


Spiraling Towards Repentance
There are five factors in teshuvah (repentance), each of which can be a starting point for the entire process.
By Rabbi David J. Blumenthal
This piece is excerpted from "Repentance and Forgiveness," which appears in the journal Crosscurrents, and is reprinted with permission of the editors



Teshuvah [return] is the key concept in the rabbinic view of sin, repentance, and forgiveness. The tradition is not of one mind on the steps one must take to repent of one's sins. However, almost all agree that repentance requires five elements: recognition of one's sins as sins (hakarát ha-chét'), remorse (charatá), desisting from sin (azivát ha-chét'), restitution where possible (peira'ón), and confession (vidui).



"Recognition of one's sins as sins" is an act of one's intelligence and moral conscience. It involves knowing that certain actions are sinful, recognizing such actions in oneself as more than just lapses of praxis, and analyzing one's motives for sin as deeply as one can. For example, stealing from someone must be seen not only as a crime but also as a sin against another human and a violation of God's demands of us within the covenant. It also involves realizing that such acts are part of deeper patterns of relatedness and that they are motivated by some of the most profound and darkest elements in our being.



"Remorse" is a feeling. It is composed of feelings of regret, of failure to maintain one's moral standards. It may also encompass feelings of being lost or trapped, of anguish, and perhaps of despair at our own sinfulness, as well as a feeling of being alienated from God and from our own deepest spiritual roots, of having abandoned our own inner selves.



"Desisting from sin" is neither a moral-intellectual analysis nor a feeling; it is an action. It is a ceasing from sin, a desisting from the patterns of sinful action to which we have become addicted. Desisting from sin involves actually stopping the sinful action, consciously repressing thoughts and fantasies about the sinful activity, and making a firm commitment never to commit the sinful act again.



"Restitution" is the act of making good, as best one can, for any damage done. If one has stolen, one must return the object or pay compensation. If one has damaged another's reputation, one must attempt to correct the injury to the offended party.



"Confession" has two forms: ritual and personal. Ritual confession requires recitation of the liturgies of confession at their proper moments in the prayer life of the community. Personal confession requires individual confession before God as needed or inserting one's personal confession into the liturgy at designated moments. The more specific the personal confession, the better. One who follows these steps to teshuvah is called a "penitent" (chozér be-teshuvah).



The tradition is quite clear, however, that recognition of sin, remorse, restitution, and confession, if they are done without desisting from sin, do not constitute teshuvah. Without ceasing one's sinful activity, one has only arrived at the "preliminaries to teshuvah" (hirhuréi teshuvah). Actual desisting from sin is what counts.



Thus, if one desists from sinful action because one has been frightened into it, that is still teshuvah and the person is considered a penitent. For example, if a person ceases to gamble compulsively because someone threatens to beat him severely the next time he does it, such a person is considered a penitent. Or, if a person ceases to steal because he has been told he will be sent to jail the next time it happens, such a person is considered a penitent. Furthermore, if a person becomes convinced that he or she will be punished in the life-after-death and ceases sinful action on that account, this person too is considered a penitent, though this motivation for desisting is higher than the previous ones because it is a function of a larger religious worldview which considers the wrongdoing as actual sin.



Teshuvah which is rooted in fear of humans or God is called "repentance rooted in fear" (teshuvah mi-yir'á) and, while not the highest form of teshuvah, it is the core thereof. Reform of one's character through analysis of sin, remorse, restitution, and confession, when combined with the ceasing of sinful action, is called "repentance rooted in love" (teshuvah mei-ahavá). "Repentance rooted in love" is desirable but, without cessation of sin, reform of one's character is useless. Maimonides, the foremost halakhic (legal) and philosophic authority of rabbinic Judaism, lists desisting from sin as the very first step to teshuvah.



Rabbinic tradition teaches that all the steps to teshuvah are necessary. Their interrelationship is best described as a spiral which touches each of the five points, yet advances with each turn. Thus, one may begin at any point--with action, analysis, remorse, restitution, or confession. However, as one repeats the steps of teshuvah again and again, one's analysis and remorse deepen, one's restitution and commitment-to-desist become firmer, and one's confession becomes more profound. As one cycles through the five phases of teshuvah again and again, one's teshuvah becomes more earnest, more serious. At its height, one achieves "full teshuvah" (teshuvah gemurá), which would require full consciousness and action such that, given the same situation, one would refrain from the sin for which one had repented.



Sinfulness is a very deep dimension of human existence and dealing with it calls upon all our spiritual, intellectual, emotional, and moral resources--even when we recognize that ceasing to sin is the base line of repentance.



Rabbi David R. Blumenthal is Jay and Leslie Cohen Professor of Judaic Studies at

Emory University, Atlanta. His books include Facing the Abusing God: A Theology of

Protest and God at the Center.

[CMike11]

But the only thing I can think of in response to that is "So what?"

+1

So what?

[CMike11]

Heck just one more thing..................

I have read the debate between some of the jewish posters here and Djim and I gotta say to the jewish posters that it would be in your best interest to stop now because Djim has stood in the gap and I am proud he is a believer.

Just my view of what has transpired.

I'll take my chances.

I can handle it.

Bring it on.:dance:

[Warrior4God]

But the only thing I can think of in response to that is "So what?"

well that was nice.

[CMike11]

Warrior, I am almost speechless. That was most kind of you.

Yes, I have been studying God's Word and hundreds of related Bible versions and books, etc. for at least 50 years, BUT, I must admit that most of you folks have impressed me with your thoughts and comments and I really feel I have learned a great deal from just about everyone of you.

So, I would like to say that IMO no matter how much any one of us studies about any given subject or doctrine, it seems to me that there is always still more to learn.

And I must add that my Junior and Senior years of High School back in Ohio were at a school that was in a predominantly Jewish community. I became good friends with several of my Jewish classmates. I had just accepted Jesus as my Savior, and so I had lots of "Biblical" questions for them. Though I was only trying to learn from them (as opposed to trying to preach to them), only a couple of them seemed willing to actually respond to my queries. But, in my graduating class of 500+ in 1956, I think the top 12 or so GPAs were all Jews and I was 23rd! A couple of them went on to become rather well known in the music field.

I believe the problem we have in debating our Jewish posters (like Mike, Harmonious, and Poison) is that we have two very DIFFERENT Bibles, so IMO it is like debating apples and oranges.

Anyway, Warrior, thank you for those "generous" comments.

Oy Vey.

Well, let's see, in high school, I had a double program of Torah, and general studies, and in college I had lectures in Torah, five days a week from 9-1, and then 2-8pm, I had general studies.

So I think I can handle it, but don't tell anyone :shhh:

[CMike11]

What you ignore maybe due to lack of knowledge maybe because you just do not want to see is there are messianic prophecy.

I am willing to say it is not willfull on your part for there are many passages that are missed the first being in Genesis 3:15

I agree when messiah returns all will worship God for a time and unlike Judaism seems to teach there is one law for all not 7 laws for one group and 613 another

Of course as a Christian I already know there is one standard all are judged by

Genesis 3:15 is not a messianic prophesy.

I posted the messianic prophesies verbatim. When the prophesies are fulfilled we will know that the messiah has come.

[Warrior4God]

I'll take my chances.

I can handle it.

Bring it on.:dance:

I don't care to bring it on, in fact it is just the opposite.

You are kinda like that mosquito that keeps buzzing in your ear and just can't make it understand that swatting at it is your way of saying enough is enough.

skeetermike

[CMike11]

Are you aware that you don't own this web site?

[DispensationalJim]

Oy Vey.

Well, let's see, in high school, I had a double program of Torah, and general studies, and in college I had lectures in Torah, five days a week from 9-1, and then 2-8pm, I had general studies.

So I think I can handle it, but don't tell anyone :shhh:

That is quite admirable. But, again, I think that our debating of "Scripture" is like debating apples versus oranges, don't you agree?

Kinda like, "My Bible is better than your Bible!???" :think:

[CMike11]

That is quite admirable. But, again, I think that our debating of "Scripture" is like debating apples versus oranges, don't you agree?

Kinda like, "My Bible is better than your Bible!???" :think:

I do agree.

[JenT]

That is quite admirable. But, again, I think that our debating of "Scripture" is like debating apples versus oranges, don't you agree?

Kinda like, "My Bible is better than your Bible!???" :think:

I think the claims are more like "my rabbis are better than your disciples," "my Hebrew is better than your translations"...but from what I've seen, it's all been "my opinion is better than your many documented sources because it's all really my Scriptures to start with"

At least that's the way it's been going in the "Prophesies about Jesus and by Jesus" thread.

...oh well.

[Tucson Jim]

<snip>

I believe the problem we have in debating our Jewish posters (like Mike, Harmonious, and Poison) is that we have two very DIFFERENT Bibles, so IMO it is like debating apples and oranges.



Bingo!

[Tucson Jim]

well that was nice.

And here you thought I was rude . . .

[Tucson Jim]

I don't care to bring it on, in fact it is just the opposite.

You are kinda like that mosquito that keeps buzzing in your ear and just can't make it understand that swatting at it is your way of saying enough is enough.

skeetermike

:)):clap:

[Tucson Jim]

Are you aware that you don't own this web site?

Are you aware that you are derailing this thread?

[Tucson Jim]

I think the claims are more like "my rabbis are better than your disciples," "my Hebrew is better than your translations"...but from what I've seen, it's all been "my opinion is better than your many documented sources because it's all really my Scriptures to start with"

At least that's the way it's been going in the "Prophesies about Jesus and by Jesus" thread.

...oh well.

It seems to be going exactly the same way here. :rolleyes:

[Tucson Jim]

Life in the "Jesus is not the Messiah according to the Jews" thread . . .
:wall:

[Tucson Jim]

Maybe if we ignore him, he'll go away . . .

[CMike11]

Are you aware that you are derailing this thread?

Are you aware this isn't your web site?

You were discusing Isaiah 53, I put my $0.02 as I am entitled too. People can decide whether to agree or disagree.

Perhaps you would be more comfortable in a Christian message board where us jews aren't there to derail your threads.

[Andrew_980]

Are you aware this isn't your web site?

You were discusing Isaiah 53, I put my $0.02 as I am entitled too. People can decide whether to agree or disagree.

Perhaps you would be more comfortable in a Christian message board where us jews aren't there to derail your threads.

I think they are mad because they cannot prove you wrong.
Keep up the good work:)

[Koushi Shinigami]

I think they are mad because they cannot prove you wrong.
Keep up the good work:)

Hmmm. It does appear that the person is being attacked, and not his message. Isn't that an indication that the attacker has run out of talking points when they resort to attacking the messenger?

[DispensationalJim]

Hmmm. It does appear that the person is being attacked, and not his message. Isn't that an indication that the attacker has run out of talking points when they resort to attacking the messenger?

Hmmm... it sounds like you are getting into the Presidential race, now! :lol:

[Koushi Shinigami]

Hmmm... it sounds like you are getting into the Presidential race, now! :lol:

:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))


Couldn't be any worse than the current choices.

[CMike11]

Thank you guys.:hug:

Perhaps it's part of that love they keep talking about.

The "Get Lost" unless you agree with everything I say part:))

[lemurpeloo]

The one true God has revealed Himself in the pages of the Holy Bible as three Persons (Father Son, and Holy Spirit), each Person is the same in essence and equal in power and glory. Church history has already dealt with those who deny the Triune nature of God, so any view contrary to this is heresy.

No contradiction in a trinitarian view of God. Here's the formula.

God is one of "A" and three of "B".

Or put another way...

God is three persons,
Each Person is fully God,
There is only one God.

Now if someone said, God is one of "A" and three of "A", that would be a contradiction.

[CMike11]

I could report them for the personal attacks, but why? They just reveal themselves for whom they really are.

There is that Borg mentality, the love and tranquility, only extends, to the point where everyone agrees with the basic tenents that they believe in.

[God is My Rock]

I disagree. The Torah isn't subjective.

Interesting notion.

Thoughts put down on paper, by men long dead, which is then interpreted by men long dead, their instruction passed down to men long dead, who are read by men long dead, who taught men long dead, how to teach men long dead, the objective meaning, of what men just recently have revived, and reconstructed, is not subjective?????

Absolutely convincing, and fascinating too!!!!

[Poisonshady313]

Interesting notion.

Thoughts put down on paper, by men long dead, which is then interpreted by men long dead, their instruction passed down to men long dead, who are read by men long dead, who taught men long dead, how to teach men long dead, the objective meaning, of what men just recently have revived, and reconstructed, is not subjective?????

Absolutely convincing, and fascinating too!!!!

What's further interesting is in your little speech you completely left out the phrase "eternal God", as if God had nothing to do with it.

This is an argument I expect from an atheist. Are you an atheist?

[Poisonshady313]

The one true God has revealed Himself in the pages of the Holy Bible as three Persons (Father Son, and Holy Spirit), each Person is the same in essence and equal in power and glory. Church history has already dealt with those who deny the Triune nature of God, so any view contrary to this is heresy.

No contradiction in a trinitarian view of God. Here's the formula.

God is one of "A" and three of "B".

Or put another way...

God is three persons,
Each Person is fully God,
There is only one God.

Now if someone said, God is one of "A" and three of "A", that would be a contradiction.

Let me take your formula and make it a little more accurate:

This is your formula: God is one of "A" and three of "B".

I prefer: God is one.

None of this "a" or "b".... no use of the words "of" or "and".... simply, God is one.

[CMike11]

Interesting notion.

Thoughts put down on paper, by men long dead, which is then interpreted by men long dead, their instruction passed down to men long dead, who are read by men long dead, who taught men long dead, how to teach men long dead, the objective meaning, of what men just recently have revived, and reconstructed, is not subjective?????

Absolutely convincing, and fascinating too!!!!

G-D had something to do with the Torah.:rolleyes:

Given by G-D, written down, and taught for generations

[Reeder]

well that was nice.


DJ's diligence in learning the word of God is respectable. When I said "So what," I was implying that just because someone studies the Bible their entire life does NOT mean that said person is more "spiritual" or "knowledgable" about God than someone of another religion. Like DJ said, its like comparing Apples and Oranges.

[God is My Rock]

What's further interesting is in your little speech you completely left out the phrase "eternal God", as if God had nothing to do with it.

This is an argument I expect from an atheist. Are you an atheist?

No, Are you honestly going to tell me Shady that you have audible heard from G-d, and that he told you that what you have been taught, has been taught with G-dlike perfection?

[CMike11]

No, Are you honestly going to tell me Shady that you have audible heard from G-d, and that he told you that what you have been taught, has been taught with G-dlike perfection?

I am not Shady, but the words in the Torah are from G-D.

[God is My Rock]

G-D had something to do with the Torah.:rolleyes:

Given by G-D, written down, and taught for generations

Right back at ya':rolleyes:

And man can have everything to do with what man does,with what G-d has provided.

And man can have everything to do with how man interprets, what man has written about what G-d has provided.


And man can have everything to do with how man teaches other men, about what G-d has provided.

And man can have everything to do, with how man interprets, what they have been taught, by man, about what G-d has provided.


To believe that what is in your mind right now is uncontaminated by man, and is pure G-d, is in my mind a little naive..........

[God is My Rock]

I am not Shady, but the words in the Torah are from G-D.

And what one does with what is from G-d is of man, or of G-d?

[CMike11]

And what one does with what is from G-d is of man, or of G-d?

I am not quite sure what you are talking about.

What is in the Torah is from G-D, and taught for generations, via the intention of G-D.

It's not relative or subjective.

[God is My Rock]

I am not quite sure what you are talking about.

What is in the Torah is from G-D, and taught for generations, via the intention of G-D.

It's not relative or subjective.

Any written word must be interpreted. It is impossible to read/hear something and not process it. Comprehension is impossible without processing what one has come in contact with.

While the torah may be from G-d, the fact that you read it, and you form your thoughts, about what you have read, does not guarantee that your thoughts are from G-d.

[DRS]

Genesis 3:15 is not a messianic prophesy.

I posted the messianic prophesies verbatim. When the prophesies are fulfilled we will know that the messiah has come.

see those to whom God has given insight know it is messianic and has seen some fullfillmet already

Which makes way more sense then saying snakes use to be able to talk and they had legs (which would make them lizards)

[CMike11]

Any written word must be interpreted. It is impossible to read/hear something and not process it. Comprehension is impossible without processing what one has come in contact with.

While the torah may be from G-d, the fact that you read it, and you form your thoughts, about what you have read, does not guarantee that your thoughts are from G-d.


I concur humans, are human.

Next point?

[CMike11]

see those to whom God has given insight know it is messianic and has seen some fullfillmet already

Which makes way more sense then saying snakes use to be able to talk and they had legs (which would make them lizards)

I showed you using the scripture verbatim, what the messianic prophesies are. They have not been fulfilled.

ALL must be fulfilled for the messiah to be the messiah.

I submit that the ones you are using who you claim G-d has given insight are false prophets.

They must be if they are contradicting G-D's word.

[DRS]

Nothing in the bible contradicts itself since the prophecy already has Jesus coming twice once on an ass the second time in the clouds prophecies will be fulfilled when God wants them to be fulfilled, some have been and some will be

[CMike11]

Nothing in the bible contradicts itself since the prophecy already has Jesus coming twice once on an ass the second time in the clouds prophecies will be fulfilled when God wants them to be fulfilled, some have been and some will be

Well...there are two messiah, messiah ben yossef, and messiah ben david.

Messiah ben yossef who will be a prelude to messiah ben david. The fulfillment of the prophesies will occur during messiah ben david.

So if you are saying Jesus is messiah ben youssef, he is insignficant.

[Reeder]

Well...there are two messiah, messiah ben yossef, and messiah ben david.

Messiah ben yossef who will be a prelude to messiah ben david. The fulfillment of the prophesies will occur during messiah ben david.

So if you are saying Jesus is messiah ben youssef, he is insignficant.

Jesus' first coming and Jesus' Second Coming (ben yossef and ben david)? ;)

[DRS]

one messiah and Jesus came through David's line just as prophecied

[God is My Rock]

I concur humans, are human.

Next point?

How can one KNOW, that their interpretation, of what G-d has provided, is the only correct one?

[CMike11]

one messiah and Jesus came through David's line just as prophecied

Then the prophesies would have been fulfilled.

They weren't.

Hence no messiah...yet.

Also, how do you know what line Jesus is from?

[CMike11]

How can one KNOW, that their interpretation, of what G-d has provided, is the only correct one?

We read what it says.

[Meriweather]

I have a question that has probably been answered somewhere in this thread--but perhaps someone might give me a summary?

My background is the Catholic understanding of Trinity; I would probably veer more towards oneness than some other representations of Trinity that I have seen discussed here. However, all perspectives become perplexing to me at some point. The perplexity I'm focused on now though is John 8:58:

Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you before Abraham came to be, I AM."

I'm trying to understand this verse from the perspective of oneness.

[Tucson Jim]

I think they are mad because they cannot prove you wrong.
Keep up the good work:)

So drearily predictable . . .:rolleyes:

[Tucson Jim]

Thank you guys.:hug:

Perhaps it's part of that love they keep talking about.

The "Get Lost" unless you agree with everything I say part:))


No . . . the "there's a reason we have threads and do not simply have random discussions" part.

[Tucson Jim]

The one true God has revealed Himself in the pages of the Holy Bible as three Persons (Father Son, and Holy Spirit), each Person is the same in essence and equal in power and glory. Church history has already dealt with those who deny the Triune nature of God, so any view contrary to this is heresy.

No contradiction in a trinitarian view of God. Here's the formula.

God is one of "A" and three of "B".

Or put another way...

God is three persons,
Each Person is fully God,
There is only one God.

Now if someone said, God is one of "A" and three of "A", that would be a contradiction.

Great post! And welcome to the Trinity thread!

[Tucson Jim]

I could report them for the personal attacks, but why? They just reveal themselves for whom they really are.

There is that Borg mentality, the love and tranquility, only extends, to the point where everyone agrees with the basic tenents that they believe in.


Yes, we are Borg because we would like to discuss Trinity here and not Jewish opinion nof whether jesus is th4e messiah.

Weak, Mike, very weak.

And who, pray tell, has "attacked" you? Did I miss something?

BTW, it's "tenets".

[Tucson Jim]

Let me take your formula and make it a little more accurate:

This is your formula: God is one of "A" and three of "B".

I prefer: God is one.

None of this "a" or "b".... no use of the words "of" or "and".... simply, God is one.

Personal preference noted.

[Tucson Jim]

G-D had something to do with the Torah.:rolleyes:

Given by G-D, written down, and taught for generations

With absolutely no interpretation, consistently, objectively reported.

Uh huh . . .

[Koushi Shinigami]

Yes, we are Borg because we would like to discuss Trinity here and not Jewish opinion nof whether jesus is th4e messiah.

Weak, Mike, very weak.

And who, pray tell, has "attacked" you? Did I miss something?

BTW, it's "tenets".


BTW, it's "THE" ;)

[Tucson Jim]

I have a question that has probably been answered somewhere in this thread--but perhaps someone might give me a summary?

My background is the Catholic understanding of Trinity; I would probably veer more towards oneness than some other representations of Trinity that I have seen discussed here. However, all perspectives become perplexing to me at some point. The perplexity I'm focused on now though is John 8:58:



I'm trying to understand this verse from the perspective of oneness.

Fire Watch would be the one to answer that Meri.

[Tucson Jim]

BTW, it's "THE" ;)

:)) I knew I would get called on my next typo! But I don't care . . .

[Koushi Shinigami]

:razz: You didn't even make it to the NEXT typo. :))

[Tucson Jim]

:razz: You didn't even make it to the NEXT typo. :))

:doh:

[Meriweather]

Fire Watch would be the one to answer that Meri.

Hasn't he said anything in the past that might give me a start on it?

[Tucson Jim]

Hasn't he said anything in the past that might give me a start on it?


I'm sorry, what is it about John 8:58 that you think would be inconsistent with Oneness doctrine?

[CRodgers]

Jesus was getting baptized by John in the Jordan River. A voice from heaven from above says, "This is my Son in Whom I am well pleased," and the Holy Spirit descended on Him like a dove.

You see God in three different places at the same time. Showing 3 separate instances of his manifest presence.

Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven now, and the Holy Spirit is with us on the earth helping empowering us to live our lives and sealing us unto salvation.

Jesus also cited that you can blaspheme the Father, and it would be forgiven of you, you could blaspheme the Son, and it would be forgiven, but, blaspheme the Holy Spirit, and it will NEVER be forgiven of you.

This scripture shows us that there were 3 personalities of the Godhead. One of them is so precious to the Father and the Son, that they would forgive the incident if you spoke against either one of them. However, doing so against the precious Holy Spirit, would never be forgiven of that person.

Are there three? Yes. Are they in one accord? Absolutely.

[Tucson Jim]

Jesus was getting baptized by John in the Jordan River. A voice from heaven from above says, "This is my Son in Whom I am well pleased," and the Holy Spirit descended on Him like a dove.

You see God in three different places at the same time. Showing 3 separate instances of his manifest presence.

Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven now, and the Holy Spirit is with us on the earth helping empowering us to live our lives and sealing us unto salvation.

Jesus also cited that you can blaspheme the Father, and it would be forgiven of you, you could blaspheme the Son, and it would be forgiven, but, blaspheme the Holy Spirit, and it will NEVER be forgiven of you.

This scripture shows us that there were 3 personalities of the Godhead. One of them is so precious to the Father and the Son, that they would forgive the incident if you spoke against either one of them. However, doing so against the precious Holy Spirit, would never be forgiven of that person.

Are there three? Yes. Are they in one accord? Absolutely.

Welcome CRodgers! You are the second new person we have had here today! I hope you enjoy the Religion Forum as much as we do!

So are you a Trinitarian? Some aspects of your post make me think you might be LDS. Either way, you will find plenty of like-minded folks here - and plenty who disagree with you.

Again - Welcome!

[CRodgers]

No I am interdenominational. Not LDS. =\

Solid spirit filled christian here looking for the return of Jesus like the rest of us.

=)

[Bzltyr]

Very nice CRodgers. I agree.

[Tucson Jim]

No I am interdenominational. Not LDS. =\

Solid spirit filled christian here looking for the return of Jesus like the rest of us.

=)


Not everyone here is looking for the return of Jesus . . .

But you and I are!

[CRodgers]

I think there needs to be a balance here though regarding the trinity. I mean the Spirit of God is just that. The Holy Spirit. God came to earth as a man. But when you do see the scriptures mentioning God having pleasure in His Son, (Well pleased) there has to be a separation between the two even though they are one.

[Tucson Jim]

Not everyone here is looking for the return of Jesus . . .

But you and I are!

And BuzzLightYear makes 3!

[CRodgers]

Not everyone here is looking for the return of Jesus . . .

But you and I are!

Trust me, I see this too often than not. We should all be comforting one another with those words. But not to derail the topic,just letting you know I agree.

[Tucson Jim]

I think there needs to be a balance here though regarding the trinity. I mean the Spirit of God is just that. The Holy Spirit. God came to earth as a man. But when you do see the scriptures mentioning God having pleasure in His Son, (Well pleased) there has to be a separation between the two even though they are one.

The Trinity doctrine, as believed by the church since its inception, teaches both one God and 3 Persons. So, yes, separate Persons, but one God. I think we agree!

[Tucson Jim]

Trust me, I see this too often than not. We should all be comforting one another with those words. But not to derail the topic,just letting you know I agree.

I'm glad SOMEONE does not want to derial this thread! (you would have to read back a few pages to see what i mean!)

[Bzltyr]

And BuzzLightYear makes 3!

I usually go quite awhile before I am discovered as Buzz Lightyear.

[Bzltyr]

I'm glad SOMEONE does not want to derial this thread! (you would have to read back a few pages to see what i mean!)


I am certain it is not because you went to UA.

[Tucson Jim]

I usually go quite awhile before I am discovered as Buzz Lightyear.

Yes, you are new too - Welcome!

[Tucson Jim]

I am certain it is not because you went to UA.

Huh? :eh:

[CRodgers]

I see what you mean. ;)

[Bzltyr]

Huh? :eh:

I could be called Phoenix Bzltyr. ASU!

[Meriweather]

I'm sorry, what is it about John 8:58 that you think would be inconsistent with Oneness doctrine?

I'm not even to the point where I can call Oneness inconsistent, as I still don't have a good grasp of it. I keep trying to look at it/understand it with a Trinity mindset, which is sort of like trying to understand baseball by comparing it to football. Therefore, I am aware my questions may well be like asking, "When is a free throw allowed?"

The first place I may be going wrong is, "God spoke the incarnation, and so was born the Son." We now have Father/Son and, of course, Spirit, which throws me right back into Trinity. Oneness explains that the Son was not mentioned in scripture prior to Jesus, because the Incarnation had not yet been spoken. Therefore, I'm thinking this means the Son was not yet called into being? Yet, Jesus (the Son) said, "Before Abraham came to be, I AM" which seems to state Jesus was in existence before the Incarnation.

I thought maybe if I could understand John 8:58 from the Oneness perspective, some of the other principles of Oneness then might fall into place for me. So far, I am still puzzled by Oneness and why this Doctrine might be a better explanation than Trinity.

[Tucson Jim]

I see what you mean. ;)

;)

[Bzltyr]

I have always been curious why the Trinity is such a stumbling block for people.

Is it just that the human mind cannot accept that God is not like us?

[Tucson Jim]

I could be called Phoenix Bzltyr. ASU!

Ah, a Sun Devil! You guys better watch out for UA this year!

[Bzltyr]

Ah, a Sun Devil! You guys better watch out for UA this year!

I heard that same warning last year. I think the only win for U of A was women's field hockey.

[CRodgers]

I believe that the reason that the angels in heaven are crying "Holy, holy, holy" are because they see three of them.

Why else would they repeat it three times unless they are speaking to each of them. All three but one God. One authority. One accord. One Godhead.

Fairly easy to understand actually.

He can't just be singular or else He would be sitting beside Himself.

(Jesus at the right hand of the Father)

Also considering They have separate names.

Yeshua meaning Messiah
Yahweh meaning God

Why the name differentiation unless there needs to be one?

[Tucson Jim]

I'm not even to the point where I can call Oneness inconsistent, as I still don't have a good grasp of it. I keep trying to look at it/understand it with a Trinity mindset, which is sort of like trying to understand baseball by comparing it to football. Therefore, I am aware my questions may well be like asking, "When is a free throw allowed?"

The first place I may be going wrong is, "God spoke the incarnation, and so was born the Son." We now have Father/Son and, of course, Spirit, which throws me right back into Trinity. Oneness explains that the Son was not mentioned in scripture prior to Jesus, because the Incarnation had not yet been spoken. Therefore, I'm thinking this means the Son was not yet called into being? Yet, Jesus (the Son) said, "Before Abraham came to be, I AM" which seems to state Jesus was in existence before the Incarnation.

I thought maybe if I could understand John 8:58 from the Oneness perspective, some of the other principles of Oneness then might fall into place for me. So far, I am still puzzled by Oneness and why this Doctrine might be a better explanation than Trinity.

I wish my other computer was working - I have a lot of the responses by Fire Watch saved on my computer and can easily pull them up. But alas, it is ailing right now.

In addition to his eloquent explanations, Fire Watch always directs us to UPC.org for explanations of the Oneness view, so you might try there.

I think the first principle from a Oneness perspective is that Oneness is a better explanation because it avoids all the "confusion" inherent in the postulation of a Triune Being. We don't think of ourselves as Triune (at least not in the same sense) so it's hard to identify with a God who is Triune. The central principle throughout the OT seems to be One God - God is one. So "oneness" emphasizes that there is absolutely, positively ONE God.

The apparent separateness of the Father, Son and Spirit does not reflect an ontological reality for Oneness, but rather, the separateness is always tied to the incarnation. Jesus is God taking on the nature of man, but it is still the same God. Because he is God, He can be both God and man, but there is still only one God - Jesus.

John 8:58, viewed in this light, could be explained thus: Jesus DID exist before Abraham, but as God, not Jesus. Jesus, the the God-Man, only existed after the incarnation.

I think this is how Oneness expalins it - make sense?

[Tucson Jim]

I heard that same warning last year. I think the only win for U of A was women's field hockey.

Ths isn't the same team as last year! I guess we'll see, won't we?

[Tucson Jim]

I believe that the reason that the angels in heaven are crying "Holy, holy, holy" are because they see three of them.

Why else would they repeat it three times unless they are speaking to each of them. All three but one God. One authority. One accord. One Godhead.

Fairly easy to understand actually.

He can't just be singular or else He would be sitting beside Himself.

(Jesus at the right hand of the Father)

Also considering They have separate names.

Yeshua meaning Messiah
Yahweh meaning God

Why the name differentiation unless there needs to be one?


You're preachin to the choir!!

[CRodgers]

I am headed to bed, Geraldo on FoxNews is cutting in and out and is hard to continue watching. I will wake up in the morning and check on my other fellow Texans to see how they are doing down south.

In any case, I wanted to leave you guys with a couple thoughts to chew on for tonight.

The concept of the Trinity is present from the opening verse of the Bible, actually. The word "God" in Genesis 1:1 is "elohim." This is not a simple plural of the word 'god.' The plural of that word, which means 'two,' is "eloh." "Elohim" means "three or more."


Also when God says "Let Us make man in Our image" I highly doubt he was consulting the angels for their guidance in the matter. I believe he was talking about Jesus because in John 1:3 it says "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."


Jesus was a carpenter. I honestly believe he was a carpenter because he decided to do what he was good at. Making things.


Night guys. Chat with you all tomorrow. If you are in Texas or in the path, stay safe and God bless.


En Agape!


CR.

[Meriweather]

I wish my other computer was working - I have a lot of the responses by Fire Watch saved on my computer and can easily pull them up. But alas, it is ailing right now.

In addition to his eloquent explanations, Fire Watch always directs us to UPC.org for explanations of the Oneness view, so you might try there.

I think the first principle from a Oneness perspective is that Oneness is a better explanation because it avoids all the "confusion" inherent in the postulation of a Triune Being. We don't think of ourselves as Triune (at least not in the same sense) so it's hard to identify with a God who is Triune. The central principle throughout the OT seems to be One God - God is one. So "oneness" emphasizes that there is absolutely, positively ONE God.

The apparent separateness of the Father, Son and Spirit does not reflect an ontological reality for Oneness, but rather, the separateness is always tied to the incarnation. Jesus is God taking on the nature of man, but it is still the same God. Because he is God, He can be both God and man, but there is still only one God - Jesus.

John 8:58, viewed in this light, could be explained thus: Jesus DID exist before Abraham, but as God, not Jesus. Jesus, the the God-Man, only existed after the incarnation.

I think this is how Oneness expalins it - make sense?

Yes, I've been to UPC site, and one or two others over the summer. When I start finding it confusing, I step away and let it all marinate for awhile, and then go back and try again. As I said, I think my main problems is that I keep trying to filter it through Trinity. One God I get. I know God existed before Abraham, but in John 8:58, wasn't Jesus speaking as Son?

There has been a lot going on today, and it was probably not best day to be trying to tackle oneness again. However, perhaps a good night's sleep will help things coalesce. I know there is something (and maybe more than one something) I am not seeing, not getting yet.

[Tucson Jim]

Yes, I've been to UPC site, and one or two others over the summer. When I start finding it confusing, I step away and let it all marinate for awhile, and then go back and try again. As I said, I think my main problems is that I keep trying to filter it through Trinity. One God I get. I know God existed before Abraham, but in John 8:58, wasn't Jesus speaking as Son?

Jesus is one Being - He is God Who has incorporated man into his nature - added humanity to divinity, if you will. So I think Oneness would say Jesus was speaking as Himself, which includes divinity which existed before Abraham.

There has been a lot going on today, and it was probably not best day to be trying to tackle oneness again. However, perhaps a good night's sleep will help things coalesce. I know there is something (and maybe more than one something) I am not seeing, not getting yet.

Well good night then and have a re****l sleep.

[Tucson Jim]

I am headed to bed, Geraldo on FoxNews is cutting in and out and is hard to continue watching. I will wake up in the morning and check on my other fellow Texans to see how they are doing down south.

In any case, I wanted to leave you guys with a couple thoughts to chew on for tonight.

The concept of the Trinity is present from the opening verse of the Bible, actually. The word "God" in Genesis 1:1 is "elohim." This is not a simple plural of the word 'god.' The plural of that word, which means 'two,' is "eloh." "Elohim" means "three or more."


Also when God says "Let Us make man in Our image" I highly doubt he was consulting the angels for their guidance in the matter. I believe he was talking about Jesus because in John 1:3 it says "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."


Jesus was a carpenter. I honestly believe he was a carpenter because he decided to do what he was good at. Making things.


Night guys. Chat with you all tomorrow. If you are in Texas or in the path, stay safe and God bless.


En Agape!


CR.

I love your carpenter comment!!

Good night CR!

[37818]

If one looks at God's name. And understand that it is very singular. And then look at the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as being that One who has that one Name. Modalism makes sense.

Yet it is very clear that from the begining the one we call the Son was "with God" and "was God." Two natures. And this before His incarnation (John 1:14.) Being "with God" shows Him to be a separate Person from God in that respect (John 1:2.) "With God."

Now Jesus makes this agument, "It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me." The testimony of two men, two persons. This is explicit. [John 8:17, 18.]

Also Jesus taught, "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32.) The two persons argument makes this easy to understand.

Jesus said, "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father." (John 16:7-16.) The language Jesus uses is that of Persons, Father, Comforter [Holy Spirit], and Himself.

Modalist understand correctly those three are manifistations of the One God who is the one Name. But that is where it ends.

But it is also explicitly true they are three Persons. The Trinity explanation is the only explanation which takes into account all scripture regarding the Godhead. Of course modelists will argue otherwise and deny the Persons. And it is this denial of the Persons for which modelism is wrong.

[drmilo]

I showed you using the scripture verbatim, what the messianic prophesies are. They have not been fulfilled.

ALL must be fulfilled for the messiah to be the messiah.

I submit that the ones you are using who you claim G-d has given insight are false prophets.

They must be if they are contradicting G-D's word.

Are they contradicting God's word -- or your understanding of God's word?

[drmilo]

Well...there are two messiah, messiah ben yossef, and messiah ben david.

Messiah ben yossef who will be a prelude to messiah ben david. The fulfillment of the prophesies will occur during messiah ben david.

So if you are saying Jesus is messiah ben youssef, he is insignficant.

Unless they are the same messiah with two different comings...

[Warrior4God]

If one looks at God's name. And understand that it is very singular. And then look at the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as being that One who has that one Name. Modalism makes sense.

Yet it is very clear that from the begining the one we call the Son was "with God" and "was God." Two natures. And this before His incarnation (John 1:14.) Being "with God" shows Him to be a separate Person from God in that respect (John 1:2.) "With God."

Now Jesus makes this agument, "It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me." The testimony of two men, two persons. This is explicit. [John 8:17, 18.]

Also Jesus taught, "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32.) The two persons argument makes this easy to understand.

Jesus said, "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father." (John 16:7-16.) The language Jesus uses is that of Persons, Father, Comforter [Holy Spirit], and Himself.

Modalist understand correctly those three are manifistations of the One God who is the one Name. But that is where it ends.

But it is also explicitly true they are three Persons. The Trinity explanation is the only explanation which takes into account all scripture regarding the Godhead. Of course modelists will argue otherwise and deny the Persons. And it is this denial of the Persons for which modelism is wrong.

Rev 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.


What I see here is that God is mentioned and that God is Jesus's God and Father...........now Jesus is not called God here and its consistent through scripture.

Joh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
(notice how Jesus makes sure they know that his God and his Father is also their God and their Father)Why? because Jesus is truth and he told them the truth here.
Jesus did not lie but every other man in history are liars.
sticking with Jesus and not mens creeds
Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Rom 15:6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.


1Co 1:3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.


2Co 1:2 Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.


2Co 1:3 Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;

2Co 11:31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.


Gal 1:3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ


Eph 1:2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.


Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

Eph 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:


Eph 5:20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;


Eph 6:23 Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Php 1:2 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.


1Th 3:11 Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you.


2Th 2:16 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace,


There are many many more of these kind of verses and salutations and nowhere does it reference Jesus as God in them but just the opposite is true



Words have meaning and the way God uses them in his Word tell us that God and Jesus are not just two persons alone but they are two beings.


Notice also that the third part of the unmentioned trinity in the Bible is also not mentioned in countlesss scripture.


Jesus never implied that he was God but declared that his God and Father was God Almighty

[drmilo]

I'm not even to the point where I can call Oneness inconsistent, as I still don't have a good grasp of it. I keep trying to look at it/understand it with a Trinity mindset, which is sort of like trying to understand baseball by comparing it to football. Therefore, I am aware my questions may well be like asking, "When is a free throw allowed?"

The first place I may be going wrong is, "God spoke the incarnation, and so was born the Son." We now have Father/Son and, of course, Spirit, which throws me right back into Trinity. Oneness explains that the Son was not mentioned in scripture prior to Jesus, because the Incarnation had not yet been spoken. Therefore, I'm thinking this means the Son was not yet called into being? Yet, Jesus (the Son) said, "Before Abraham came to be, I AM" which seems to state Jesus was in existence before the Incarnation.

I thought maybe if I could understand John 8:58 from the Oneness perspective, some of the other principles of Oneness then might fall into place for me. So far, I am still puzzled by Oneness and why this Doctrine might be a better explanation than Trinity.

I would guess, if I understand Oneness correctly, that the Son's pre-existence spoken of in this passage would be a reference to his being the Father... But of course, I am Catholic, and a trinitarian, so I'm only making a guess here...

[Meriweather]

I would guess, if I understand Oneness correctly, that the Son's pre-existence spoken of in this passage would be a reference to his being the Father... But of course, I am Catholic, and a trinitarian, so I'm only making a guess here...

Yes, I've made it that far. But then I backtrack to, "Wait a minute. Isn't Jesus speaking as the Son, here....or is he speaking as the Father....They're both one, anyway...." and I'm right back into the Trinity loop.

Trinity doesn't bother me. Oneness doesn't bother me. In fact, to me, it comes across as two ways of defining or stating the same thing. Sort of like, 5 + 4 = 9; and 4 + 5 = 9.

Yet, here, people do seem to see them as quite distinct philosophies and doctrines. I haven't been able to differentiate between them very well--if, in fact, at all. So, I'm trying to take another stab at it.

[Warrior4God]

Unless they are the same messiah with two different comings...

Amen .........My God is big enough not to need 2 different messiah to do the job and when that one messiah returns he will surely completely complete what God completly planned before the foundations of the world.

[Snow]

Amen .........My God is big enough not to need 2 different messiah to do the job and when that one messiah returns he will surely completely complete what God completly planned before the foundations of the world.

Seriously.

If 'your God' is big enough to not need 2, then why isn't He big enough to not need one... since the measure of the quantity needed, according to you, is a function of God's bigness?

[Warrior4God]

Seriously.

If 'your God' is big enough to not need 2, then why isn't He big enough to not need one... since the measure of the quantity needed, according to you, is a function of God's bigness?

Seriously.

If you believed Gods Word you would answer your own question.


1Ti 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

1Ti 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
1Ti 6:4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
1Ti 6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.


2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.


Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

[Meriweather]

Seriously.

If 'your God' is big enough to not need 2, then why isn't He big enough to not need one... since the measure of the quantity needed, according to you, is a function of God's bigness?

What am I missing here? God is One. Are you arguing that God's presence wasn't even needed to redeem mankind?